The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fair rent should be determined in consideration of the property's location and living cost, and the enhancement of rent should align with the guidelines provided by the Apex Court.

ORDER:

1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2013 in R.A.No.30 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (lower appellate Court), whereunder the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed confirming the order of the III Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, (trial Court) in R.C.No.94 of 2009, dated 11.11.2011, whereunder fair rent was fixed and 10% increase on fair rent for every two years was granted.

2. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the tenant and the landlord, respectively.

3. The landlord has filed R.C.No.94 of 2009 before the trial Court for fixation of fair rent of Rs.10,000/- per month in respect of mulgi bearing No.15-1-664/8, admeasuring 10 x 18 feet (180 sft.), situated at Goshamahal, Hyderabad. The facts disclose that originally lease was commenced from 08.04.1985 with monthly rent of Rs.500/- excluding the municipal taxes and electricity consumption charges.

Subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs.800/- per month apart from paying Rs.400/-per month towards maintenance charges. Earlier also, the landlord has filed R.C.No.80 of 2003 against the tenant before the trial Court and the same was dismissed, after contest, on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case, since the rent payable was Rs.1,200/- per month. Challenging the same, the tenant filed R.A.No.206 of 2005 and the same was also dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court. As no revision was preferred against the said judgment, it has become final.

4. Thereafter, the landlord filed the present case for fixation of fair rent claiming that the suit mulgi is located in the heart of the city and it is surrounded by many commercial establishments. He has further claimed that the living cost has gone up and money value has come down and the rental value in the place in which the suit mulgi is located is increased in many folds. On the above grounds, the landlord sought to fixation of fair rent of Rs.10,000/- per month.

5. The tenant has filed a counter affidavit admitting the ownership of the landlord over the suit mulgi. It is his case that the fair rent in respect of the suit mulgi was only Rs.800/- per month as on the date of filing of the application. He denied the averments that he was paying Rs.400/- per month towards maintenance charges and that the suit mulgi is located in the heart of the city. He has stated that there are no commercial buildings or business centre near to the suit mulgi. The suit mulgi is of 50 years old and there are no repairs to the same and the rent which he was paying is the fair rent and the same requires no enhancement.

6. The trial Court, on the basis of the above pleadings, has framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the quantum of monthly rent is Rs.800/- or Rs.12,00/-?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for fixation of fair rent in respect of petition schedule premises?

3. To what relief?”

7. The landlord, to support his case, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and relied upon Exs.P-1 to P-3 and Exs.X-1 to X-3. The tenant, to support his case, examined himself as R.W.1 and relied upon Exs.R-1 to R-5.

8. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has partly allowed the claim of the landlord and fixed the fair rent at Rs.3,000/- per month with further enhancement of 10% for every two years on the fair rent fixed. Challenging the same, the tenant has filed R.A.No.30 of 2012 and the landlord has filed cross-objections seeking further enhancement of rent. The lower appellate Court, by judgment dated 17.03.2009, dismissed the appeal and the cross objections. Aggrieved by the dismissal of tenant’s appeal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/tenant has contended that the trial Court, while fixing the fair rent, did not take into