ORDER:

Heard Sri Mohammed Sanaullah Farhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri Damodar Mundra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the Addl. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.93 of 2018. By the Impugned Order, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the impugned orders passed in R.C. No.259 of 2012 dated 20.9.2018 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows: The respondent/landlady, being the owner of the petition schedule mulgi bearing municipal No.5-7-560 admeasuring 243 square feet situated at Nampally, Hyderabad, instituted R.C. No.259 of 2012 before the Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the said premises from Rs.400/- per month to Rs.24,300/-. The father of the petitioner was the original tenant of the petition schedule mulgi, having entered into tenancy under the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, and after his demise, the petitioner continued in occupation of the premises as tenant under the respondent by succeeding to the tenancy. It is the case on record that the monthly rent continued at Rs.400/- from the inception of tenancy.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the respondent/landlady, PW1 was examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner/tenant, RWs 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.R1 to R19.

5. Upon consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Rent Controller, partly allowed the petition by order dated 20.09.2018, fixed the fair rent at Rs.4,900/- per month with enhancement of 10% once in every two years.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/tenant preferred R.A. No.93 of 2018 before the Addl. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire material on record, dismissed the appeal by order dated 04.02.2022 and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner/Respondent:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court in R.A. No.93 of 2018 is contrary to law, facts of the case, evidence on record. It is submitted that the first appellate court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced through RWs 1 to 4. According to the petitioner, the admissions elicited from PW1 clearly establish that the petition schedule property no longer existed in its original extent, since the GHMC had taken possession of 120 square feet out of 243 square feet for road widening and compensation had been received by the respondent’s mother. Therefore, the very subject premises stood materially reduced and was not available in the form pleaded at the time of disposal of the proceedings.

8. It is further contended that, despite such material admissions, the Appellate Court failed to draw proper legal inference therefrom. The petitioner also asserts that the respondent failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the claim for fixation of fair rent, yet relief was granted. The finding that the surrounding locality was a commercial area is also assailed as being without any factual or documentary basis.

9. The petitioner further contends that the appellate Court failed to consider the evidence of RW2 and RW3, who, as neighbouring occupants, deposed that they were paying rent of only Rs.400/- per month, which was relevant for determining fair rent. It is also submitted that the appellate Court failed to accord due significance to the admitted