THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4854 OF 2013

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioners/respondents aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013 in R.A.No. 220 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Mohd. Ismail Ashfaq, learned counsel, representing Mr.R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and none appeared for the respondents.

3. The relevant facts briefly stated, are that, respondent No.1/the landlord initiated proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, by filing a petition bearing R.C. No. 135 of 2009. The petition was directed against revision petitioner No.1/respondent No.1 (the tenant), seeking fixation of fair rent at Rs.3,500/- per month, exclusive of electricity, water, and municipal taxes, effective from 01.01.2009. The subject premises are a property located at Municipal No.1-8-460/13, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, admeasuring approximately 400 square feet.

4. It has been pleaded that, the tenant, revision petitioner No.1, occupied the premises, which consists of a two-room mulgi/commercial shop with a verandah, under an oral tenancy agreement operating on a month-to-month basis. The monthly rent had remained fixed at Rs.250/- for over two decades, exclusive of water and electricity charges. The landlord contended that the rent was disproportionately low, especially in light of the fact that he was receiving Rs.2,500/- per month from a neighboring mulgi (Municipal No.1-8-460/12), which measured only about 100 square feet. Upon the tenant’s refusal to accept the proposed increase in rent, the landlord initiated proceedings for fair rent fixation.

5. In support of his claim, the landlord testified as PW-1 and produced several exhibits: Ex.P1 (Legal Notice), Ex.P2 (Postal Acknowledgment), Ex.P3 (Tenant’s Reply to Legal Notice), and Exs.P4 to P6 (Counterfoil Receipts).

Conversely, the tenant appeared as RW-1 and produced the following documents in his defence: Ex.R1 (Petition in R.C. No. 676 of 1989), Ex.R2 (Order in R.C. No. 676 of 1989), Ex.R3 (Petition in R.C. No. 416 of 2000), Ex.R4 (Counter in R.C. No. 416 of 2000), Ex.R5 (Deposition of RW-1 in R.C. No. 416 of 2000), Ex.R6 (Order in R.C. No. 416 of 2000), Ex.R7 (Appeal Order in R.A. No. 67 of

2003), Ex.R8 (Notice), and Exs.R9 to R25 (Photographs with accompanying CD).

6. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dismissed the landlord’s petition. The Controller observed that the landlord had failed to examine the tenant of the adjoining mulgi or to produce documentary evidence indicating that the subject premises was used for commercial purposes, such as selling pooja items. Additionally, there was no evidence of parking availability, nor was there substantiation that buses operated on the road in front of the premises. The Controller concluded that the landlord’s assertions regarding location and rental value were self-serving and unsupported by corroborative material.

7. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the landlord filed an appeal, R.A. No. 220 of 2011. The appellate Court, invoking judicial notice of the location and the usage of the front portion of the premises as a mulgi, revised the fair rent to Rs.5/- per square foot amounting to Rs.2,000/- per month, effective from the date of the original petition, with a provision for an annual increment of 5%.

8. Dissatisfied with the appellate Court's order, the tenants have filed the present revision petition.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that, in determining the fair rent, the appellate Court erred by failing to adhere to the settled legal principles that rent fixation must be just and reasonable. This requires consideration of several key factors, including the property's location, the nature and quality of construction, its accessibility