The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order made in RC No. 405 of 2010 dated. '16-1 '1-2017 on the file of the lV Addl. Rent Controller Hyderabad pending, disposal of Revision petition in the interest of Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: Khaja Saleemuddin, S/o.Khaja Naseeruddin, Aged about 38 years, R/o.H.No.16- 9-3212t3, Rani Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad Rep. by his GPA Holder Khaja Nasiruddin, S/o.Late Abdul Hameed, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, Rl o.16-9-32121 3 Ranibagh, malakpet, Hyderabad. ... Petitioner/RespondenURespondent (Petitioner and landlord in RC No.405 of 2010) ANO Santosh Devi, Wo.Mahaveer Prasad, Aged about 76 years, Tenant of Shop No.21-1-665/17, First Floor, Mumtaz Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad Rep. by her GPA Holder Rajesh Kumar S/o.Mahaveer Prasad, 50 years, Occ. Business, ...RespondenURevision Petitioner/Appellant (Respondent and Tenant in RC.No.405 of 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay dated 10-02-2020 in C.R.P. No. 2467 of 2019 on the file of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri SVSSR Krishna Uppaluri, representing Ms. K. Udaya Sri Counsel for the Respondent: Mohd. lsmail Ashfaq, representing Sri R.A. Achuthanand Civil Revision Petition No.2785 ot 2019 Petition filed under Section 22 of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, 1960 aggrieved by the order dated 08-08-2019 passed in RCA.No.2'l ol 2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, preferred against the order dated 17-11-2017 passed in R.C.No.406 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Between:

1. Mahaveer Prasad, (DIED) s/o Late Jhutharmal, Aged 78 years, Tenant of Shop No.21-'1-665/7 Ground Floor, Mumtaz Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad Represented by his GPA Holder Mr.Rajesh Kumar s/o Mahaveer Prasad, aged 50 years, Occ. Business

2. Santosh Devi, Wo. Mahaveer Prasad, Age 82 years 3. Hari Govind Prasad, S/o. Mahaveer Prasad, Age 56 years 4. Gopal Prasad, S/o. Mahaveer Prasad, Age 54 years 5. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Mahaveer Prasad, Age 52 years, All are residing at H.No.16-1 '1-405163, SBI Colony, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. (Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased Petitioner No.1 as per C O, dt.21 .11 2023 in lA.No.3/2023) ... Petitioner/RespondenURespondent (Petitioner and landlord in RC No.406 of 2010) AND Khaja Salimuddin, s/o Khaja Naseeruddin, 38 years, Business, r/o H.No.16-9- 321213 Rani Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad Rep. by his GPA Holder Khaja Nasiruddin s/o Late Abdul Hamid, 63 years Business, rlo 21-1-66511, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad. ...RespondenURevision Petitioner/Appellant (Respondent and Tenant in RC.No.406 of 2010) lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order made in RCA No. 21 of 2018 dated 08-08-2019 on the file of Court of Addl. Chief Judge City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of Revision Petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: Khaja Salimuddin, s/o Khaja Naseeruddin, 42 years, Business, r/o H.No.16-9- 321213 Rani Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad Rep. by his GPA Holder Khaja Nasiruddin s/o Late Abdul Hamid, 68 years Business, rlo 21-1$6511, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad- ... Petitioner/RespondenURespondent (Petitioner and landlord in RC No.406 of 2010) AND Mahaveer Prasad, (DIED) s/o Late Jhutharmal, Aged 76 years, Tenant of Shop No.21-1-665/7 Ground Floor, Mumtaz Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad Represented by his GPA Holder Mr.Rajesh Kumar s/o Mahaveer Prasad, aged 50 years, Occ. Business ...RespondenURevision Petitioner/Appellant (Respondent and Tenant in RG.No.406 of 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay dated 10-02-2020 in C.R.P. No.2785 of 2019 on the file of this Honble Court in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Rule 19 (2) of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Contrirl Rules, 1961 R/w Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the petition to.bring the Legal Representatives of deceased lst petitioner on record in interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri SVSSR Krishna Uppaluri, representing Ms. K. Udaya Sri Counsel for the Respondent: Mohd. lsmail Ashfaq, representing Sri R.A. Achuthanand CiVil Revision Petition No.2861 of 2019 Petition filed under Section 22 of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, 1960 aggrieved by the order dated 08-08-2019 passed in RCA.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, preferred against the order dated 17-11-2017 passed in R.C.No.406 ot 2010 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Between:

1. Mahaveer Prasad (DIED), s/o Late Jhutharmal, Aged 78 years, Tenant of Shop No.21-1-665/7 Ground Floor, Mumtaz Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad Represented by its GPA Holder Mr.Rajesh Kumar s/o Mahaveer Prasad, aged 50 years, Occ Business.

2. Smt. Santosh Devi, Wo. Mahaveer Prasad, Age 82 years 3. Hari Govind Prasad, S/o. Mahaveer Prasad, Age 56 years 4. Gopal Prasad, S/o. Mahaveer Prasad, Age 54 years'' 5. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Mahaveer Prasad, Age:52 years, All are residing at H.No.16-11405/63, SBI Colony, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. (Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased Petitioner No.1 as Per C.O, dated 21-11-2023 in lA.No.3/2023) ... Petitioner/RespondenURespondent (Petitioner and landlord in RC No.406 of 2010) AND Khaja Salimuddin, s/o Khaja Naseeruddin, 38 years, Business, r/o H.No.16-9- 321213 Raoi Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad Rep. by his GPA Holder Khaja Nasiruddin s/o Late Abdul Hameed, 58 years Business, rlo 16-9-321213, Ranibagh Malakpet, Hyderabad ... RespondenURevision Petitioner/Appellant (Respondent and Tenant in RC.No.406 of 2010) lA NO: 1 OF 20'19 Petition under Order 8, Rule 1 (A)(3) of CPC r/w Rule 7 (5) of Rent Control Rules, r/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner to file extract obtained by GHMC in respect of H.No.21-1- 665/7 (Ground floor) showing the extent of demised premises 130 sq. ft. only in the interest of justice and to meet the ends of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order made in RC NO.'106 of 2010 dl. 17-11-2017 on the file of the lV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad pending disposal of Revision Petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Betu/een: Khaja Salimuddin, s/o Khaja Naseeruddin, 42 years, Business, r/o H.No. 16-9- 321213 Rani Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad Rep. by his GPA Holder Khaja Nasiruddin s/o Late Abdul Hameed, 68 years Business, rlo 16-9-321213, RanibaghMalakpet,Hyderabad ...Petitioner/RespondenURespondent (Petitioner and landlord in RC No.406 of 2010) AND Mahaveer Prasad, s/o Late Jhutharmal, Aged 76 years, Tenant of Shop No.21-1- 6657 Ground Floor, Mumtaz Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad Represented by its GPA Holder Mr.Rajesh Kumar s/o Mahaveer Prasad, aged 50 years, Occ Business. ...RespondenURevision Petitioner/Appellant (Respondent and Tenant in RG.No.406 of 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To vacate the interim stay dated 10-02-2020 in C.R.P. No.2861 of 2019 on the file of this Honble Court in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Rule 19(2) of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 R/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 15 days in filing the petition to bring the Legal Representatives of deceased 1st petitioner on record in interest of justice and to meet ends of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri SVSSR Krishna Uppaluri, representing Ms. K. Udaya Sri Counsel for the Respondent: Mohd. lsmail Ashfaq, representing Sri R.A. Achuthanand The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER n THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.140 of 2020 2467 2785 AND 286I oF 2019 COMMON ORDER: CRP No. 140 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner-respondent-tenant (Sahtosh Devi) aggrieved by the common judgment dated 08.08.2019 passed in RCA No.20 of 2018 by thc learned Additional Chicf Judge, City SmalI Causes Court, Hyderabad.

2. CRI'] No.2467 of 2019 is filed by rhe peliLioner-appellant- tenant (Santosh Devi) aggrieved by the common .iudgment dated

08.08.2019 passed in RCA No.7 of 2018 by the leamed Additional Chiel Judge, City Small Causes Court, IlydeLabad.

3. CRP No.2785 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-respondent- tenant (Mahaveer Prasad) aggrieved by the common .judgment dated

08.08.2019 passed in RCA No.2l of 2018 by the leamed Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, I{yderabad

4. CRP No.2861 of 2019 is filed by the appellant-tenanr (Mahaveer Prasad) aggrieved by the common judgment dated 08.08.2019 passed in RCA No.06 of 2018 by the leamed Additionat Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad .,fd 2 Dl.GRR, J CRP Nos"110 of 2020 & Balch

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as'landlord' and'tenants'

6. The petitioner-tenant in CRP Nos.140 of 2020 and 2467 of 2019 was the wife of the petitioner-tenant in CRP Nos.2785 and 2861 of 2}lg. During the pendency of CRPs, the petitioner-tenant in CRP Nos.2785 and 2861 ol 2019 died and his Legat Representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 5 in the said revision petitions'

7. The facts of the case in brief are that the landlord filed a petition under Section 4(I) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 belore the IV Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.C. Nos.405 of 2010 and 406 of 2010 against the tenants praying the Rent Controller to fix the fair rent at Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/- per month in respect olthe schedule properties i.e. first floor of shop No.2l-l-665-17 and ground floor of shop No'21-1- 665-7 respectively situated in Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad. The tenants of both the above shops who were husband and wife were lepresented by their GPA holder Mr. Rajesh Kumar, who was their son. The landlord hled the Rent Control petitions through his GPA holder Mr. Khaja Naseeruddin, who was none other than his father. The contention of the landlord was that he was the absolute owner of the petition schedule properties and had given ,/ ) 3 Dt-GRR, J CRP Nos110 of2020 & Bolch the same on lease to the tenants on a rent of Rs.l,00l/- each per month and executed registered lease deeds on 24.05.2001. As per rhe lease deed, the lease commenced from 01.05.2001 and it was for a period of 9 years. The tenants agreed to enhance the lent @ 20% on the cxisting rent after. cornpletion of threc years. The petition schedule propefiics were let out for the purpose of hosiery and readymade business. The tenants were carrying on cloth business in wholesale and retail in the said premises. The schedule properties were located in Rikab Gunj, which was onc of the biggest wholesale and retail cloth business in llyderabad. Ncar the petition schedule property, there were Sattar Market, God gifi Market, where wholesale and retail business was being carried. Oppositc to the petition schedule property, there was BJ Market, which was famous for wholesale cloth business. T'he petition schcdule property was onc of the premier business localities in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. It was of RCC construction. There had been a revolutionary change in thc rate of rent, the value of the building, cost of construction and labour. As per the market value certifrcate issued by the SRO, the valuc of the propefty was Rs.8,30,000/-. Taking into consideration all the factors, the schedule properties would easily fetch rent of Rs.25,0001 and Rs.30,000/- per month, respectively. As such, the landlord filed the petitions before the j 4 DT.CRR' J CRP NoJ. I 40 of 2020 &. Eotch Rent Controller for fixing fair rent as such in respect of the schedule propeftles.

8. The tenants filed their counters contending that the petitions were not maintainable since the same were filed through the GPA holder. The landlord had not provided any amenities for convenient enjoyment of the shops. When the landlord rcfused to receive the rent, the tenants sent notice under Section 8 of the Rent Control Act and later filed petitions in RC Nos.l3 ol 20ll and 14 ol 2011, respectively, seeking permission to deposit monthly rents. The rents of the shops in Rikab Gunj were much lesser than the demise premises, as claimed, which were located at better places and some of them were located facing the main roads. In view of rapid growth of twin cities, number of new markets were flooding, wherever the localities were dcveloping, resulting in giving birth to new wholesale and retail markets, reducing the percentage of influx of the customers in fukabgunj area. There was no place for parking of scooters, leaving apart moving of lour wheelers, resulting in diminishing the inflow of customers. With great difficulty, the rickshaw pullers were carrying luggage manually. Section 4 ol the Rent Control Act was not applicable because the rent was being enhanced as per the terms of the lease deed. The value of the properties drastically slashed down beyond 5 Dt.GRR, J ( RP Nor t40 of 2D0 & Botch expectations. The landlord was not entitled to claim the rclief and prayed to dismiss the petitions.

9. During the course of enquiry, the GpA holcrer.of the randlord was examined as pW. 1 and Exs.pl to p5 were ntarked. On behallof the tena.ts' the GPA horder of the tenants was examined as nw. 1 and Ex.Rr was rnarked

10. l-he leamed IV Additional Renr Contr.oller, Crry Snrall Causes court' Hyderabad vide orders dated 16.11.2017 anc) 17.rr.2or7 alrowed RC Nos.40,5 and 406 of 2010, respectively, fixing thc lair rent @ Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. at Rs.20l_ per sft., for 250 sft., exclusive of electricity and rvater consurnption charges from the date o1- frring or trre petition and rurther held rhat the landlord was entitled for r *yo periocrical enhancement for every two years. I l. Aggrieved by the said orders dated l6.tl.2Ol7 antl 17. |.2017 passed in RC'Nos'405 and 406 0f 20 r 0, the u,successf ul tera,ts prelbned appeals before the courr of the Chief Judge, City Small .auses Court, IJyderabad, under Section 20 0f the I{ent contror Act vide r(cA Nos.7 0f 2018 and 6 of 2018, respectively. The landlord filed Cross_Altpeals vide RCA Nos.20 of20l8 and 21 of2O1g, respecrively. 6 D|.GRR, J CRP Notl4o of 2020 & Batch

12. The leamed Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, disposed of the appeals hted by the tenants as well as the landlord by a common judgment dated 08.08.2019. The leamed Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dismissed RCA No.7 of 2018 filed by the tenant and allowed the cross appeal in RCA No.20 of 2018 filed by the landlord, determining the fair rent at Rs.35/- per sft., for 250 sft., i.e. Rs.8,750/- per month with periodical increase of rent at 20o/o for every three years on the existing rent. ln a similar manner, the leamed Additionat Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, also dismissed RCA No.6 of 2018 filed by the tenant and allowed the cross- appeal in RCA No.21 of 2018 filed by the landlord determining the fair rent at Rs.35/- per sq.ft., for 250 sq.ft., i.e. Rs.8,750/- per month with periodical increase of rent at 20o/o for every three years on the existing rent.

13. Assailing the correctness of the common judgment, dated

08.08.2019 in RCA No.7 of 2018 and RCA No.20 of 2018, the unsuccessful tenant preferred CRP No.140 of 2020 and CRP No.2467 of

2019. In a similar manner, the unsuccessful tenant of ground floor of schedule property i.e. shop No.21-I-66517, preferred CRP Nos.2861 of 2019 and 2785 of2019. 7 Dr-CRR, J CRP Nos.l40 of 2020 & Batch

14. Heard Sri SVSSR Krishna Uppaluri, lcarned counsel representing Ms. K. Udaya Sri, leamed counsel on record for the revision petitioners-tenants and Mohd. Ismail Ashfaq, leamed counsel representing Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel on record for the respondent- landlord.

15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners-tenants contended that both thc trial court as well as the lower appellate court did not apply their minds .judiciously in appreciating the question of facrs and law. They failcd to sce that thc landlord did not place any marerial much less acceptable nraterial to show that there was increase in the quantum of rents in the locality. Thc landlord did,ot discharge the burden to establish the prevailing ratcs ot'rent in the locality as on the date of filing of the pctition for fixation of [ai' rent. He had not let in any indepe,dcnt evidc,ce to demonstrate the prevailing rates ofrent for fixation of fair rc,t. Except the self serwing testimony of PW. t and Ex.p.4 the registered lease deed pertaining to anothcr tenant of the same landlord, which was not even marked through PW.l and not proved in accordance with larv, there was no independent material to establish the prevailing rate of rent for fixation of fair rent. The courls below ought to have dismissed the petitions without there being any acceptable evidence. The courts below lailed to see that 8 Dr.CRR, J CRP Norll0 of2020 & Eotch Ex.P4 was brought into existence during the pendency of Rent Control petitions before the Rent Controller and no credence could be attached to the said document. The courts below ought to have seen that the extent of the petition schedule properties was only 130 sq.ft. each but not 250 sq.ft The finding of the courts below that the extent ol the petition schedule properlies were 250 sq. ft. each, was contrary to the material on record and the same was liable to be set aside on the said ground. The courts below failed to see that there was no mention about the extent ol the prope(ies leased out in Ex.Pl. The burden would lie on the landlord to prove the extent leased out by him. The appellate court was not justified to improve the case of the landlord basing on the weakness of the case of the tenant The appellate court ought to have appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note down the extent of the petition schedule shops in the interest ofjustice and ought to have allowed the interlocutory applications fited vide IA Nos.141 and 142 of 2019 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The appellate court committed error in dismissing the said pctitions and the hndings of the appellate court were liable to be set aside. The findings of the appellate court that adverse inference had to be drawn against the tenant as no permission was sought by him to be represented by his GPA, was not correct, as the petitions filed by RW. I seeking permission to represent the tenants as their GPA was allowed by the trial court vide orders in IA I I Dt.GRR, t CRP Nosuq of )020 & Bok:h Nos.220of 201I and222 of 201l,respectively. RW. 1wastherecognized agent and GPA of tenants, as RW.l was appointed as their Power ol Attorney by the tenants. The courts below failed to see that the landlord did not file his title deed and property tax receipts to show the extent of the property leased out. The landlord did not approach thc courl wirh clean hands and suppressed the real facts. He was disentitled to contend that the extent was 250 sq.ft., and relied upon the judgment of the l{on'ble Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and anothcrr on the aspect that non-disclosure of relevant facts with a view to obtain advantage would amount to fraud.

16. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, supportcd the judgrnent o1-the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Courl, Ilyderabad, contending that the lorvcr appellate couft on considering thc oral and documentary evidence on record, fixed the fair renl @ Rs.35/- per sq.ft, taking into consideration tlie location of the propefty. The property was situated in Rikabgunj area, which was a biggest wholesale and retail cloth market in the entire State. The tenants were running a Hosiery shop. The property was given on a rent of Rs.l,00 l/- in tlre year 2001 through registered lease deed dated24.05.2001 for a period of 9 years and the tenant agreed to enhance the rent at 20Yo on ' ltsl+; r scc r l0 Dt.GRR, J CRP Nos.l10 oJ 2020 & Batch the existing rent after completion of three years. The schedule properties were provided with all amenities. The property was located in a big building consisting of ground, first, second and third floors. It was a business complex. Near the petition schedule property, there was A.P. Cloth Association building comprising of three floors wherein also wholesale and retail cloth business was being run. Several markets like Madina Market and Pattargatthi, which were famous for cloth and footwear business, were near the petition schedule property. It was one of the premier business localities in the twin cities. No vacant mulgi was available in the said locality. The density of the shops was very low and the influx of customers was very high. Due to the high density of customers, business was even carried on the footpath. The landlord filed the market valuation certificate issued by the SRO, wherein the value of the property was recorded as Rs.8,30,000/- which would prove that the petition schedule properties would easily fetch the amounts as demanded by the landlord as rent which was fair and reasonable. After fiting of RC petitions in the year 2010, there was no enhancement of rent. The landlord filed the lease deed of another tenant, but the tenants had not filed any other lease deed or examined any witness to show that the rent was not even Rs.7,000/-. The schedule appended to the applications would clearly show the extent of the propefiy as 250 sq.ft. No counter was filed by the tenants to show that the ) ) Dt GRR, J CRP Nos.l40 oI2020 & Batch properties were not to an extent of250 sq.ft., but the extent of the schedule property was only 130 sq.ft. The tenants had not chosen to enter into the witness box. The tenants were in occupation of properties since 2001 and there was no enhancement of rent since then. They were not even paying sufficient rent and relied upon the judgrnents of the Full Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Surjit Singh v. Pritam Singh2 on thc aspect that for fixing the fair rent what had to be considered was the locality in which it was situated and considerations as to the extent of the accommodation and the amenities it afforded. He furlher relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singhs on the aspect that concurrent findings offact could not be interfered in revision petitions. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in CRP No.1650 of 2019, dated 30.08.2019 on the aspect that the registered lease deed being a public record of plivate document can be considered as public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act and can be marked without formal proof of examining any witness in proof of it. He fufther relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Motilal and others v. Faisal Bin Ali and anothera on the aspect that during the subsistence of lease agreement also, the landlord 'ArR l9z5 HP 43 (FB) 'lzotly s scc ze o (zozo; rr scc orz 12 Dt.GRR, J CRP No* I a0 o/ 2020 & Batch could make an application for determining the fair rent under Section 4 of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. 17 . Perused the record.

18. On perusal ol the record, the Rent Controller, on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and by taking into consideration that the schedule premises was located in Rikabgunj, which was a commercial area, fixed the fair rent at Rs.20l- per sq.ft., taking the extent of the schedule property as 250 sq.lt., (Rs.20l- x 250 - Rs.5,000/- per month as lair rent) exclusive of electricity and water consumption charges from the date of petition with 10% periodical enhancement lor every two years.

19. In the appeals preferred by both the tenants as well as the landlord against the said order, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad vide common judgment dated 08.08.2019 dismissed the appeals preferred by the tenants with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- and allowed the appeals preferred by the landlord determining the fair rent at Rs.35/- per sq.ft. for 250 sq.ft., (Rs.35/- x 250 sq.ft.) i.e. Rs.8,750/- per month from the date of filing the petition exclusive of electricity and water consumption charges and other charges as agreed between the parties with periodical enhancement of rent at 20Yo for every l3 D..GRR, J ('RP Nos.I10 of2020 & Batch three years on the existing rent and granted two months time to the tenant to pay the arrears of fair rent determined by the courl.

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh (3 supra) u,hile considering the scope of revisional powers of High Court under various State Rent Acts of Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala held that the provisions under consideration would not permit the High Court to invoke its revisional jurisdiction under the clock olan appeal in disguise and the revisional court was not entitled to re-appreciate the cvidence and strbstitute its own conclusion in placc of the conclusion of the appellate authority. In dealing with the findings of fact, the examination of findings of I'act by the High Court is limited to satisfy itself that the decision is according to law. The conferment of power on High Court under the provisions of the Rent Acts is to satisf! itselI as to the "legality, regularity or propriety" of decision of appellate authorities or that it is according to law. Whcther or not a finding of fact recorded by the subordinate cour/tribunal is "according to law", is required to be seen on the touchstone whether such findins of fact is based on some legal evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the evidence or overlooking and ignoring the material evidence altogether or suffers from perversity or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. It further held that when compared with t4 Dr.GRR. J CRP Nos.ll0 o12020 & Botch appellate jurisdiction, the cxpression "revision" is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by expression "appeal" Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing while it is not so in the case of revisional jurisdiction.

21. In the light of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court elucidating the scope of the revisional power of the High Court, when the contentions of the revision petitioners are looked into, their main contention was that the courls below lailed to consider that the extent of the schedule property was only 130 sq.ft, but erroneously fixed the said extent as 250 sq.ft., without there being any evidence lrom the side of the landlord

22. The revision petitioners preferred I.A. Nos.l of 2019 in CRP No.286l of 2019 and CRP No.2467 of 2019 to receive the extract of the assessment made by GHMC wherein the extent of the property pertaining to D.No.21-l-66517 and2l-1-665117, respectively, was shown as 130 sq.ft. But, the said documents were not filed before the Rent Controller or before the Rent Control Appellate Court. As the scope of revision is limited, this Court cannot entertain fresh evidence at this stage. Before the lower appellate Court, the tenant filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner lor local inspection of the schedule properties. / / :-;;!,i.,.. - .l.r .- .-- *1i.,;ji.... .,] l5 Dt.GRR, J CRP Nos.l10 of 2020 & Balch The applications were dismissed observing that they were filed at the fag- end of the appeals and that the extent of the schedule propefties was not denied by the tenants in the counter filed before the Rent Controller and no rebuttal evidence was adduced to establish that the extent of the schedule properties was not 250 sq.ft. The lower appellate court obscrved that in the schedule appended to the Rent Control Application, the extent of the property was shown as 250 sq. lt., but the tenants had not chosen to file counter-affidavits nol entered into witness box to testitv the facts mentioned in the counters filed bv RW. I .

23. Prima facie, the tenants had not raised any dispute with regard to the extent of the property. Belore the lower appellate court, the tenants contended the extent of the property as 165 sq.ft., and in the revision, they are now contending that the extenr was only 130 sq.ft. As rightly observcd by the lower appellate court, there were no pleadings rvith regard to the aspect that the extent of the property was not 250 sq.ft. There was no cross-examination even on PW. I on that aspect. As such, the lower appellate court observed that there being no proper foundation in the counter by the tenants it was not legally permissibte 1'or thc tenants for the first time to raise controversy at the stage of appeals rvith regard to the extent of the petition schedule property. As the scope of revisional jurisdiction is still narrower confined to jurisdictional errors and does not I6 Dt.GRR, t CRP Not I .t0 of 2020 & Barch permit re-appreciation of evidence or introduction of new evidence or documents, this Court cannot permit new evidence to be introduced at this stage. As such, I.A.Nos. I of 20 I 9 in both the CRPs 2861 of 2019 and 2467 of 2019 are dismissed.

24. White rejecting the application for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner also, the lower appcllate court observed that the tenants kept quiet lrom 2010 till 29.04.2019 for filing the applications for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and for want of basic pleadings, the said applications were not maintainable. This Court does not find any material irregularity or illegality or impropriety in the observations ol the lower appellate court to set aside the same.

25. The other contention raised by the leamed counsel for the revision petitioners was that it was improper to rely upon the document marked as Ex.P4 pertaining to the lease deed of another tenant executed by the landlord without any corroborative evidence adduced by the landlord to show the value of the rent of neighbouring properties, the document was not marked either through PW. I or through the said tenant, no opporlunity was provided for cross-examining the witness on the said document, as such, the same has no evidentiary value l7 Dt.GRR, J CR P Nos. I 10 ol'2020 & Batch

25.1. Leamed counsel for the respondent-landlord on this aspect relied upon the order of this Court in CRP No.1650 of 2019 dated

30.08.2019 wherein also a similar contention was raised that the appellate authority could not have relied upon the rental deed marked as Ex.p.8 to arrive at fair rent because nobody connected with the said document was examined as a witness. The leamed Judge while considering the provisions under Sections 72 and 76 of the Evidence Act and the judgrnent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madamanchi Ramapa and anothcr v. Muthaluru Bojjappas, State of Haryana v. Ram Singh('and Shyam Lal v. Sanjeev Kumar and othcrsT, Gopal Das and another v. Sri Thakurji and others8 and also of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.E.V. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswaraswamy and V.p. Temple and anothcre, held that: "The certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidcnce even without formal proof i.e. without examining any person connected with the said docur.nent. The Rent Controller as well as the appellatc authoriry rightly followed Ex.P8 in arriving at fair rent of Rs.60/- per sq.yd., and their assessment of evidence docs not suffer from any infimtity warranting interference by this Court under Section 22 ofthe Act.', ' etR r96s sc t6lg u nIR 2ool sc 2s32 ' elR 2oo9 sc at l5 ' lln 1:oy 1943 pRlvy couNCtL E3 '1zoo:y t scc z5z t r8 DtGRR, J CRP Nosl4o of 2021 & Ratch

26. As the said principles are also applicable for placing reliance upon Ex.P4 by the courts below in fixing the fair rent, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the lower appellate court by taking the said document into consideration in fixing the lair rent.

27. However, imposing of costs on the tenants by the lower appellate court is considered as exceeding its jurisdiction as no reasoning was given by the lower appellate couft in coming to the conclusion for imposing costs upon them and no conduct of the tenants was recorded for coming to such conclusion. As such, the imposition ol costs is considered as erroneous and as such the same is liable to be set aside. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate court on other aspects to set aside the same.

28. In the result, all the CRPs are dismissed confirming the common judgment dated 08.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Courr, Hyderabad in RCA Nos.7/2018,20 of 2018, 6 of 20 I 8 and 2 I of 20 I 8 in fixation of fair rent at Rs.35/- per sq.ft for an extent of 250 sq.ft., (250 Sq.ft. x Rs.35i- per sq.ft.: Rs.8,7501) for each of the petition schedule properties from the date of filing of the RCs., and its periodical enhancementht"QO% for every three years on the existing l9 Dr.GRR, J CRP Nosllo of 2020 & Balch rent. The arrears of fair rent at the above said rate shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of this order. However, to the extent of imposition of costs on the tenants, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is set aside. No order as to costs Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL i,s::l::":'la t1 'b."r,o* oFFrcER To,

1. The Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad 2 The lV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Ms. K. Udaya Sri, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Kam/gh W HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 B rrtE S14 rC- e ,) i) ) o '+ 05 AUG 2M .\ ) f)t \r-,,A1., COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.140 ot 2020, 2467,2785 and 2861 of 2019 DISMISSING OF THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS @n 1