1. The petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 are the wife and husband respectively who are the tenants, whereas, the petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.3029 & 3030 of 2017 is the landlady. All these four civil revision petitions are filed under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘Act’), arising out of a common issue, as such it is just and expedient to decide all revision petitions by common order.

2. The facts in C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 are dealt with for better appreciation of the case. C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 are filed aggrieved by the orders in R.A.No.174 & 175 of 2016 dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, which, in-turn were preferred against the order in R.C.No.170 & 169 of 2014 dated 29.07.2016 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad.

3. For convenience sake, the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.1937 & 1969 of 2017 who are the wife and husband respectively will be referred as ‘tenants’ and the respondent in C.R.P.Nos.3029 & 3030 of 2017 will hereinafter be referred as ‘landlady’.

4. Landlady filed R.C.No.169 & 170 of 2014 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, under Section 4 of the Act, alleging that she is the owner of the building bearing municipal No.4-3-161 to 4-3-161/40 which consists of ground plus two floors situated at Ranijung, Secunderabad, having got it under a re-conveyance deed dated 19.07.1985, executed in her favour by her husband Veerabhadra Rao. Thus, she became the absolute owner of the property. It is also alleged that a mulgi bearing municipal No.4-3-161/9 & 10 admeasuring 230 sq.ft each, situated in ground floor of the above mentioned building was let out to the tenants in the year 1984 on monthly rent of Rs.200/- and Rs.150/- towards amenities charges. Tenancy was oral and as per the terms agreed between the landlady and the tenants, rent was to be paid on or before of 5th of every succeeding month and the property tax of the above mentioned non-residential premises is to be paid by the tenants. It is the case that the rent was gradually enhanced from time to time and by the date of filing R.C.Nos.169 & 170 of 2014, the rent of the mulgis bearing Nos. 9 & 10 in the petition schedule premises was Rs.2,000/- and the tenants has to pay Rs.100/- towards maintenance charges apart from monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. It is the contention that the tenants are carrying on business in submersible pump sets and other related items in the mulgi bearing Nos.9 & 10, which are not separated by partition wall in the above mentioned mulgis, the tenants were carrying on business under the name and style ‘Key Yess’ and ‘Rahul Enterprises’. The petition schedule premises is a commercial property and it is situated abutting to the main road leading to R.P. Road and Secunderabad Railway Station. The present rental value of a nonresidential premises in the said area is about Rs.100/- per sq.ft and the present petition schedule property fetches rent of Rs.70/- per sq.ft. It is alleged that the landlady requested the tenants to enhance the rent reasonably, but the tenants paid a deaf ear. Since, the tenants have not paid the enhanced rent, the landlady got issued a legal notice, demanding the tenants to pay the enhanced rate of rent or to vacate the petition schedule premises. In reply, the tenants stated that there is no space for parking of the vehicles and the petition schedule premises is not provided with toilet facility, whereas, the landlady states that there are toilets and washroom in the 1st and 3rd floors of the building and all the tenants including the present tenants are making use of the same. It is stated that the petition schedule premises is situated in a commercial area, where commercial activities such as banking, textiles and electronic businesses are being carried on within the vicinity. For the mulgi bearing Nos.3 & 4 where the business in the name and style ‘Galaxy Eng