JUDGMENT :

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 27.07.2015 passed in R.A.Nos.173 and 91 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 06.08.2013 in R.C.No.473 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the order dated 07.05.2013 in R.C.No.453 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner in both these revisions is the respondent tenant in the above R.Cs. and the respondent herein is the landlord. For better understanding of the matter, the parties hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant’ and ‘landlord’.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent herein had let out his mulgi bearing H.No.1-2-606/198 situaterd at Banda Maisamma, Indira Park Road, Hyderabad, to the petitioner herein in the year 1996 to carry on the business of Medical and General Stores. Since the petitioner herein is not paying the rents and the mulgi which was let out to the tenant is required for the personal use, the landlord filed the R.C.No.473 of 2008 seeking eviction of the petitioner and he also filed R.C.No.453 of 2008 seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule property. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the entire evidence on record, allowed both the cases and directed the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlord within two months from the date of the order, solely on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved by the said orders, the tenant filed in R.A.Nos.173 and 91 of 2013, both the appeals were dismissed confirming the judgement of the Rent Controller. But, the Appellate Court went ahead and calculated the rent with an enhancement @10% for every two years. Aggrieved by the said orders, the tenant preferred these revisions.

4. The landlord also filed an application before the Rent Controller in R.C.No.453 of 2008 seeking fixation of fair rent. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and after considering the evidence on record, directed the tenant to pay rent @ Rs.2500/- p.m. from the date of filing of the petition, with a future enhancement of 10% for every two years and also directed her to pay the arrears of rent within two months from the date of the order. While passing the above order, the trial Court observed that the rent of Rs.750/- p.m. was meagre since the mulgi is situated in one of the prime business localities in Hyderabad.

5. The contention of the tenant is that she filed a Section 8 application in R.C.No.341 of 2008 which was allowed by the court on 08.02.2010 holding that the rent is to be deposited @ Rs.650/- p.m. and the said order became final and further the Court directed her to deposit the rent from May 2008 to April 2010, i.e., from the date of filing the petition to the date of the order @ Rs.650/- p.m. and from May 2010 onwards, to deposit the said amount of Rs.650/- on or before 10th of every month into the Court. The petitioner would further contend that as there is no appeal or revision filed against the said order, it operates as constructive res judicata and that the findings of the trial Court in R.C.No.473 of 2008 would suffer from legality.

6. She would also contend that it is not the case of the landlord that rent has to be enhanced by 10% after completion of every three years but both the Courts below observed that rent has to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the tenant would aver that no relief may be granted beyond the scope of the pleading taken by the parties. The appellate Court applying an enhancement of 10% of rent for every two years and holding that tenant has to pay the balance of Rs.23,822,12/- is against the basic pleadings on record.

7. Another major contention raised by the tenant is that the lease deed which is not registered under