An interesting, nay, an important question arises for adjudication of this court. The question is whether with the fixation of fair rent for the demised premises in excess of Rs.3500/- per month, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is ousted and consequently the order of eviction passed by him, as confirmed in appeal, is without jurisdiction?

2. The brief facts leading to the case are recounted hereunder:

The petitioners are the tenants of premises bearing No.3-6-564/7, situated at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the demised premises”). The demised premises belongs to respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the landlady”). The tenancy was oral and the agreed rent for the demised premises was Rs.1100/- per month. The landlady filed two petitions before the learned II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Controller”). She filed R.C.No.468/2006 for fixation of fair rent and R.C.No.470/2006 for eviction of the petitioners on the plea that the demised premises was needed for the bonafide requirement of her husband who is a Doctor for running a clinic. The petitioners contested both the petitions. By separate orders dated 29-7-2010, the Rent Controller allowed R.C.No.470/2006 and ordered the petitioners’ eviction. He has also fixed fair rent for the demised premises at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. per month.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said two orders of the Rent Controller, the petitioners filed two separate appeals before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The landlady also filed an appeal not being satisfied with the adequacy of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. The learned Chief Judge dismissed all the three appeals. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of Judgment in R.A.No.378/2010 pertaining to the petitioners’ eviction.

4. At the hearing, Sri K.K. Waghray, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly conceded that he is not pressing the Civil Revision Petition on the concurrent findings of the Courts below relating to the bonafide requirement of the landlady which constituted the sole basis for the eviction order. He has however advanced the contention relating to the Rent Controller losing his jurisdiction with the fixation of fair rent in excess of the pecuniary limit prescribed in Section 32(c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). His submission is that the fair rent for the demised premises was fixed with effect from the date of filing of the application for such fixation, which also happened to be the date on which the petition for eviction of the petitioners was filed; that as the rent per month for the demised premises shall be taken as the rent in excess of Rs.3500/- as on the date of filing the eviction petition, the learned Rent Controller has lost his jurisdiction to adjudicate the eviction petition on merits and that therefore he ought to have rejected the petition by relegating the landlady to take recourse to the common law remedy of filing a civil suit for the petitioners’ eviction.

5. This argument, though appears attractive superficially, on a deeper analysis of the true legal position, it does not hold water. The reasons for this conclusion are setout, infra.

6. There is no dispute on two aspects among the parties, namely, (i) that under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act 2005, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is limited to Rs.3500/- per month in the areas covered by the Municipal Corporations in the State and Rs.2000/- per month in other areas. As the demised premises is situated within the area of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is limited to Rs.3500/- per month; and (ii) that as on the date of filing of the eviction petition, the agreed rent was Rs.1100/-, which was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and that