Important Point—High Court cannot interfere with fact findings recorded by Rent Controller.

1. This revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'), is filed by the appellants-tenants in R.A. No. 90 of 2013 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Appellate Court'), and the respondents-tenants in R.C. No. 200 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad (for short, 'the Rent Controller'), challenging the order dated 21-03-2017 in R.A. No. 90 of 2013, whereby the Appellate Court confirmed the order dated 03-06-2013 in R.C. No. 200 of 2007 of the Rent Controller fixing fair rent for the premises at Rs.4,500/- per month.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred as landlady and tenants for convenience.

3. The landlady filed petition under Section 4 (1) of the Act, for fixation of fair rent for the premises bearing No. 4-3-122, ground floor, situated at Ghasmandi, Secunderabad. The tenancy is oral on month to month basis. The schedule property was originally let out by the brother of the landlady to the tenants, he gifted the property to her and thereby tenancy was also attorned in her favour. The schedule property is a non-residential building in the ground floor exclusively used for commercial purpose. The rent agreed to be paid by the tenants is Rs.250/- besides payment of property tax and water and electricity consumption charges. Property tax at Rs.278/- per annum is payable by the landlady and the balance of tax has to be paid by the tenants. The schedule property is situated in prime locality i.e. heart of the commercial centre of Secunderabad. It is in the main business centre known as Ghasmandi, Hill Street, and the premises would fetch not less than Rs.8,000/- per month easily if it is let out to any reasonable tenant in view of its location adjacent to 50' width road in high commercial locality surrounded by commercial establishments, near to railway station, bus stop, telegraph office, petrol bunk etc.,. The market value of square yard is about Rs.30,000/- in the locality and the rent being paid by the tenants for the similar premises in ground floor is about Rs.70/- per square foot. The extent of the premises is 182.5 square feet. Taking into consideration of the commercial value of the premises, its location, the use to which it is put to and the prevailing rent for similar premises in the locality, the landlady requested to fix fair rent for the premises @ Rs.8,000/- per month under Section 4 (1) of the Act.

4. The tenants filed counter denying material allegations while admitting the relationship of landlady and tenants, monthly rent being paid by the tenants to the landlady, attornment of tenancy and liability to pay appropriate taxes etc.,. The tenants denied the location of the premises and its commercial potentiality while denying that the schedule premises would fetch rent of Rs.8,000/- per month and it is unjust rent demanded by the landlady. It is also contended that all the mulgies in occupation of tenants were sold by owners as the mulgies were located in by-lane measuring 22' to 25' road not fetching good rents. Respondent No. 2, the proprietor of respondent No. 1 tenant, had acquaintance with the original landlord Abdul Subhan Khan and respondent No. 2 was introduced by late Hanumaiah and late Akram Khan, upon which late Abdul Subhan Khan entrusted the construction work of building bearing Nos. 4-3-119 to 128 (old Nos. 2513 to 2530 and 2305) situated at Chandkhan Street, Hill Street, Secunderabad. Respondent No. 2 supervised the construction work and safeguarded the construction material as he was residing in the building opposite to the building known as Abdul Subhan Khan Complex. The tenants initially obtained the premises on monthly rent of Rs.100/- and paying regularly and it was later enhanced to Rs.175/- per month during the lifetime of Abdul Subhan Khan who agreed in writing that he would not enhance the rent but the declarati