THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.284 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the order passed by the learned II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.C.No.78 of 2014 dated 13.10.2016 fixing fair rent at the rate of Rs.8055/- per month is confirmed. 2. The respondent is the landlord and he filed R.C.No.78 of 2014 for fixing fair rent under Section 4(1) of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)

Control Act, 1960.

3. The parties are herein after referred to as arrayed in R.C.No.78 of 2014.

4. The contention of the petitioner - landlord in R.C.No.78 of 2014 was that he was the absolute owner of house property bearing Municipal No.4-4-224 admeasuring 537 square feet situated at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. The father of the respondent obtained the premises from the father of the petitioner for residential purpose 40 years ago and the tenancy was continued with the same relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent was paying the rents @ Rs.1,050/- per month and the tenancy was oral. The premises was located in Sultan Bazar and Badi Chowdi area, which was part of the city and one of the oldest commercial markets of Hyderabad. The rents in the said locality had increased multifold for the past 5 to 10 years. But the respondent continued to reside there and used it as residential - cum - commercial occupation. He was enjoying the premises by paying meager rents as against the prevailing market rate of Rs.35/- per square feet, which would turn out to be Rs.18,795/- for a premises of 537 square feet and requested the Rent Control Court to fix fair rent by enhancing the rent from Rs.1,050/- to Rs.18,795/- @ Rs.35/- per square feet. He also submitted that he also filed a petition for eviction before the II Additional Rent Controller vide R.C.No.293 of

2013 and the same was pending.

5. The tenant filed counter contending that the original owner of the schedule property was one Parvathi Bai, W/o.Sukhadev Pershad from whom the father of the respondent by name Balakrishna had taken the schedule property on rental basis @ Rs.150/- per month on 01.05.1968 and since then the tenancy was continuing from time to time. After Parvathi Bai died in December, 1975, her husband Sukhadev Pershad started collecting rents and thereafter his son Durga Pershad collected the rents from time to time. Thereafter, the petitioner being the son of Durga Pershad was collecting the rents. The rents were enhanced time to time and the respondent - tenant paid the enhanced rent @ Rs.1,050/- per month from April, 2012 onwards. The petitioner was collecting the rents in the capacity as agent, but he was neither the owner nor having any right to evict the respondent. The petitioner was accepting the rents without raising any objection. No legal notice was issued to him prior to filing the RC proceedings. He further submitted that the building was constructed in the year 1965. Some portion on the backside of the building had come down and the GHMC had also issued notice. The rent claimed to be enhanced to Rs.18,795/- was against the law. The petitioner was somehow trying to get the respondent evicted from the schedule premises and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The petitioner - landlord was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 was marked on his behalf. The respondent - tenant was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R62 were marked on his behalf.

7. The learned II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad observing that the schedule property was located in the heart of the city and it was a commercial hub and the rents in the locality had increased multifold and the respondent was using it as a residential - cum - commercial occupation fixed fair rent @ Rs.15/- per square feet and considering the extent of the premises as 537 square f