The High Court · 2025

1. Shri Subha Chari (Died Per LRs) 2. Smt. Reddamma (died Per LRs 3 & 4) 3. Sri. Prabhakara Chary, S/o deceased respondents 1 and 2 4. Sri Balakrishna Chary, S/o deceased respondents 1 and 2 (Both Fi/o H.No.1-8-497/3, Chikkadapally' Hyderabad ) ...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in p"t='rt"i'.!h^e.High Court may be pleased ro in cRp.rrlp.ruo.6649 of 2013 in the affidavit filed in supp# "itn" vacate the interim orders CRP.No.4854/13. "?.irv'i"t.iJist11t2O13 Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRt' R A ACHUTHANAND counselfortheRespondents:MVBSNANUDEEP(Norepresentation)(Not Present) The Court made the following: ORDER t: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4854 0 F 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.22O of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Mohd. lsmail 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..l/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 0'l .01.2009. The subject premises are a property located at Municipal No.1-8-460/13, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, admeasuring approximately 400 square feet. 7 \7R1' C.LP.No.18it o[20] ) lt has been pleaded that' the tenant' revision petitioner No'1' 4. occupied the premises' which consists of a two-room mulgilconlfiretcial 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' ln support of his claim' the landlord testified as PW-1 and 5. produced several exhibits: Ex Pl (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 rn his defence: Ex Rl (Petition in R'C No 676 of 1989), ExR2 (Order in RC No 676 of 1989)' ExR3 (Petition in RC. No 416 of 2000)' ExR4 (Counter in RC No 416 of 2000)' Ex.R5 (Deposition of RW-'l in R C No 416 of 2000)' Ex R6 (Order inR.C.No.416of2000),Ex.R7(AppealorderinR.A.No6T*of )J t\-l-R,rr (..K1'.N0.485J o/ 201 ) 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 randrord's petition. The controrer observed that the landlord had failed to examine the tenant of the adjoining murgi or to produce documentary evidence indicating that the subject premises was used for commercial purposes, such as selling pooja items Additionalry, there was no evidence of parking availabirity' 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. : I I l 4 N'ilt , (.kP.No.48il o/ 201 ) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that' in 9. determining the fair rent, the appellate Court erred by failing to adhere to the settled legal principles that rent fixation must be iust and reasonable This requires consideration of several key factors' the nature and qualitY of including the property's location' construction, its accessibility from the main road' and the availability ofbasicamenities.Heemphasizedthattheageofthebuilding- admittedly around 45 years-was not properly taken into account' Furthermore, while the landlord had alleged that he was receiving a higher rent from an adjoining property' he did not examine any tenants or provide corroborating evidence to substantiate this clalm' lntheabsenceofsuchevidence,andinlightoftheoraladmission regarding the building's age and suboptimal location (i'e'' not situated on a main road), the fixation of fair rent at Rs 2'000/- per month was both arbitrary and legally unsustainable lt was argued that the Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the landlord's petition based on the insufficiency of evidence' and the appellate Court had wrongly enhanced the rent based on conjecture rather than on established Parameters' LearnedcounselfurtherreliedonthejudgmentoftheHon,ble Supreme Court in Mohd Ahmed & Another v Atma Ram Chauhan & 5 N'TR,/ ().R.P.N0.4851 of 201 ) othersl ' wherein it was herd that rent must be determined based on factors such as location, type of construction, proximity to main roads' avairabirity of parking facilities, and other such considerations. ln the present case, the subject premises is located in a narrow by_ lane and lacks parking amenities, and the building is approximately 45 years old That apart submitted that, during the pendency of the revision proceedings, respondent No. 't (the original randrord) passed away. Upon his demise, the subject property devolved upon his wife, who subsequenfly sold it to a third party. That third party, in turn' sord the property to revision petitioner No.2, the wife of revision petitioner No 1 (the originar tenant). presenry, revision petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are in occupation of the said premises. These facts, coupled with the absence of cogent evidence from the landlord regarding prevairing market rents, justified the Rent Controller,s initial rejection of the petition. .The enhancement by the appellate court, based purely on surmise, was therefore unjustified, and intervention was sought accordingly.

10. ln contrast, the respondenllandlord (now represented through successors) contended on appeal that the tenant had admittedly bqen. in uninterrupted possession of the premises for the past 45 I 1201t; 7 Supreme Court Cases 755 I 6 \l ( .kl'.|:0.48i'l aI20l ) years, during which period the rent had never been revised lt was asserted that the property is centrally located with clear access to a main road and that the tenant was operating a goldsmith,S workshop from the premises. On this basis' the landlord argued that he was well within his rights to seek enhancement of rent after such an extended duration. Moreover, the appellate Court' taking judicial notice of the premises' location and usage, justifiably revised the rent in a moderate and reasonable manner' lt was also submitted that' according to the legal authority cited by the petitioners themselves' a landlord is entitled to a 10% rent increase every three years ln this context, the rent as fixed by the appellate Court was' in fact' far below the rate permitted under such norms Hence' it was argued that the objections raised by the revisron petitioners were untenable and devoid of merit, and accordingly, the revision petition was liable to be dismissed. 11 I have considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the materials on record' 12 The fact that respondent No'1 (the landlord) was the owner of 400 square feet and bearing the subject ProPertY measurlng at ChikkadaPallY, HYderab4{,* Municipal No.1-8-460/13, located adjacent to the well-known Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple is not 7 AI'rR,/ (..KP.No.48it of 20/ ) in dispute. Likewise, it is undisputed that revision petitioner No.1 has been a tenant in the said premises for approximately 45 years, initiarry paying rent at the rate of Rs.200i- per month, which was rater increased to Rs.250/- per month from the year 19g9. rt is further admitted that the tenant is operating a goldsmith,s workshop from the premises. '13. Respondent No. 1, who examined himself as pW_1, deposed that in the year 200g, he issued a legal notice proposing an enhanced rent of Rs.1 ,650/_ per month, exclusive of water and electricity charges as well as municipal taxes. He emphasized that the subject premises is located adjacent to the popular Venkateswara Swamy Temple and that the tenant is engaged in a profitable goldsmith business, thereby generating substantial income from the premises. The landlord further asserted that he owns the adjoining property as well, for which he is currenfly receiving a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/_, exclusive of utility charges. 14 However, during cross_examination, it was brought to light that landlord had not submitted any documentary evidence substantiating the claim that the prevailing rent in the locality, including for the adjoining premises, was Rs.2,500/_ per month or m:re On the other hand, the tenant, who appeared as RBf,i, B NTki (..1\.1,.X,t.1E 51 of 201 ) reiterated in his testimony that the building situated on the subject premises is approximately 70 years old He contended that the road in front of the premises leads to a dead-end' there is no provision for parking, and the area is predominantly residential in nature' thereby rendering it unsuitable for commercial establishments The tenant further stated that he has been maintaining the premises and attending to all necessary repairs over the years He also pointed out that the municipal authorities have assessed the property tax at a nominalamountofRs.600/-perannum'reflectingitslimited commercial viabilitY.

15. ln light of these factors, the tenant contended that the proposed enhancement of rent to Rs 2'500i- per month was excessive and unreasonable. He categorically denied the landlord's assertion that the adjacent property was yielding Rs 3'000/- per month in rent. l6.Section4oftheAndhraPradeshBuildings(Lease,Rentand Eviction) Control Act, 1960, governs the determination of fair rent' The relevant statutory provision is extracted as follows' Determination of fair rent - (1) The Controller shall' on 4. application by the tenant or landlord of a building' fix the fair rent for such building after holding such enquiry as the Controller thinks fit' 9 N RJ C.&P_N0.4851 r{ 2O1 ) (2) have due regard: ln fixing the fair rent under this Section, the Controller shall (a) (b) (c) to the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation Jn, simltar circumstances during the il;ir;;;;;. piior to tre 5th April, 1944; to the rental ,"lru .r:. entered in the property tax assessment bool< of the. concerned ioJai-autnority retating to the period mentioneJrn ciJuslill;. to the circumstances of the case, including any amount paid by the tenant oy way or'preririr-# or. any other tike sum in addition t,i r.""i nprii, ,sin "rt5r"it" (3) may allow: In fixing the fair rent of residential buildings, the Controller if the rate of rent or rental value referred to in sub_section (2) does not "r"."JGn,"y,_i,r. ,rp""" per mensem, an increase not exceedirig 12 y, pet .----..., cent, on such rate or rental ,alu.l (D (iD if the rate of ru pees pe r, :+."t, ;JJi per mensem. an increase not cent, on such rate or rental valuel ":X,":,"J""""j; H;?y#: "r"e"Org. 1g lt per ----..., (iii) if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds fifty rupees per mensem, an rncrease not erce"Oing..gi ,r, i; cent, on such rate or rental ,alue provided that in the case of a residential buitdins which has been "on"iru-"]"j'rfr";:";ff, 1944, the percentage of in.r"r"" Jn"r]f ioi-exceeo Sz % . 56 % and 75 respectivety (4) ln fixing the fair rent of non_residential buildings, the Controller may allow: (i) ----.,., . if the rate of |.:nl_:|. rentat. vatue referred to in sub_ ]fi"ll"J":'l"t?:: i:.t-:I"-""d lttv i'p-"J" i"..'" .n,",, 56 % per cent' on such rate or rental ,rL!l"""o'nn 10 \r\ (..1\.P.\n.18;1 ol )01 ) (ii) if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds fifty rupees per men;;' ;; increase not exceeding 75 percent' on such rate or rental value: Provided that in the case of a non-residential ouiroins JniJn""n;;;;"; constructed, after 5'h April' fS+a tne peicentage of increase shall not exceed 75 and 150 resPectively' ln the case a building for which the fair rent has been fixed (5) before the commencement of this Act' the Controller shall on the application of the landlord' allow such increase in the fair rent as in the opinion of the Controller' the landlord is entitled to under this Section.

17. A plain reading of Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act' 1960' makes it evident that the Rent Controller is mandated to consider certain key factors while determining fair rent. These include: (a) the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodations; (b) the rental value entered in the property tax assessment records maintained by the local authority; and (c) any premium paid by the tenant in addition to the rent. These criteria collectively ensure that the rent fixed is just' reasonable, and reflective of actual market conditions.

18. ln the present case, although the landlord asserted that the adjoining property is fetching a monthly rent of Rs 3'000/-' he failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate this claim ' Nevertheless, the appellate Court relied upon the iudgmenlof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan Arya v stafe of Tamil Nadu (AlR t1 ^7&/ C.RP.No.t85t of 2013 1986 SC 1444), wherein it was held that the Rent Controller is enti'ed to take judiciar notice of the substantiar and manifold increase in rental values in urban areas over time. 19. ln line with this legal position, the appellate Court,s reasoning in enhancing the rent was based on a logical assessment of the subject property's rocation and the admitted use of the front portion of the premises as a mulgi(shop). Thus, the Court,s approach in fixing the fair rent is found to be both rational and legally justified. 20 judgment, petitioners Furthermore, rn the case cited by the revision themselves- Mohd. Ahmed & Another v. Atma Ram Chauhan & Ofhers-the Hon,ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 21 of the comprehensive guidelines for determining Court emphasized the landlord,s entiflement to nted property and enumerated principles aimed -tenant litigation. The relevant portion reads as reasonable rent. The a fair return on the re at minimizing lahdlord laid down follows: "21. Accord to our considered view majority of these cases are fired becau the land,ords do not get reasonable rent akin to market ,"nt, tr. initiated so before r:::^" ":: ground or the other litisation is omega' we deem it our dllly s66 obrigation ,o ,,, ) guidelines and norms for such type of "or."'ng * --'- .j ! 12 \ 1t\.. t-.tr-P.|', o.1E i1 oi ){)l ) litigation, so as to minimlse landlord{enant litigation at all levels These are as follows:- (i) The tenant must enhance the rent according to the terms of the agreement or at least by ten percent' after every three years and enhancedrentshouldthenbemadepayabletothelandlord'lfthe rentistoolow(incomparisontomarketrent)'havingbeenfixed almost 20 to 25 years back then the present market rate should be worked out either on the basis of valuation report or reliable estimates of building rentals in the surrounding areas' let out on rent recently (ii) Apart from the rental, property tax' water tax' ma'ntenance charges electricity charges for the actual consumption of the tenantedpremisesandforcommonareaShallbepayablebythe tenant only so that the landlord gets the actual rent out of which nothing would be deductible ln case there is enhancement in property tax, water tax or maintenance charges' electricity charges then the same shall also be borne by the tenant only' (iii) The usual maintenance of the premises' except ma'ior repatrs would be carried out by the tenant only and the same would not be reimbursable bY the landlord' (iv) But if any major repairs are required to be carried out then in that case only after obtaining permission from the landlord in writing, the same shall be carried out and modalities with regard to adjustment of the amount spent thereon' would have to be worked out between the Parties. (v) lf the present and prevalent market rent assessed and fixed between the parties is paid by the tenant then landlord shall not be entitled to bring any action for his eviction against such a tenant at 13 NII&/ C.R-P.|rlo.1Bit of 20t ) least for a period of 5 years_ Thus for a period of 5 years the tenant shal enjoy immunity from being evicted from the premrses. (vi) The parties shall be at liberty to get the rental fixed by the official varuer or by any other agency, having expertise in the matter, (vii) The rent so fixed should be just, proper and aclequate, keeping in mind the location, type of construction, accessibility to the main road, parking space facilities available therein etc, Care ought to be taken that it does not end up being a bonanza for the landlord."

21. of fair rent, It is therefore evident , that, in the determination particularly when the previously fixed rental value dates back approximately 20 years, the Rent Controller is expected to make a reliable and reasonabre estimate. This determination must arso take into account the tenant,s liabilities, including expenses incurred for maintenance, property tax, water tax, and electricity charges. Additiona'y' both parties are enti,ed to present evidence rerating to the prevailing rental values in the locality. 22. ln the present case, based on the evidentiary materials placed on record, the appellate Court concluded that a rent of Rs.5/_ per square foot constituted a reasonable valuation for the subject premises. The revision petitioners, apart from raising technical objections, failed to demonstrate any material irregularity, l4 L.R-1).\a. /.9-;J 'rr 14l j ._ - .,1 impropriety, or legal perversity in the impugned appellate judgment regarding the fixation of fair rent'

23. ln view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellate Court acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and exercised its discretion judiciously in determining the enhanced rent. There being no tenable grounds to interfere with the findings' the warrants no interference and is judgment under challenge accordinglY affirmed' Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed No order 24 as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications' if any, shall stand closed SD/.M.NAGAMANI S TAN T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER R A ACHUTHANAND Advocate [OPUC] MVBSN ANUDEEP Advocate IOPUC] To,

1. One CC to SRI' 2. One CC to SRI 3 Two CD Coples GR/PSL \q/ . ,., ,,ri . a $i ')*1 HIGH COURT DATED:1 2t0212025 l { I i I i I I I l i I I i . ST-r. i,'( c J o o 12 [Us t$21 t OE -sPATcH * g-O ORDER CRP.No.4854 of 2013 THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED 6'oP%A w, flrttro