The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.'ANA CTVIL REVI SION PETITION NO. 4773 0F lrot7 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed aggrie vt:d Ity the judgment (Iated 02.06.2017 passed in R.A.No. 168 ot 2015 on the file of tlle Chiet .Iudge, City Small Causes Courr , I{yrlerabad by conhrming the order clated 20.Og.2O15 passed rn R.C.No.62 of 2011 by the Additional Renr Controller, Secun ierab:rd (for short 'Ren t ControllerJ .

2. R.A.No.168 ol 2Ol5 was filed by the rervision petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.No.52 <.:1.2O11, Iited by the respondent herein who is the landlord ft r lixzrtion of fair rent unrier Section 4 of the Rent Control Act (for short Act,). The petition,:r herein is the tenant. For the sake ol r onvenience the parties are referred to as .Landlord,and .lenant,.

3. The l:rndlord is lhe owner of four premis,:s, b<:aring municipal Nos. 10-2-193, 1O_2_tg3/A, IO_2-ts:il2/B and t0-2-194/218, tO-2-rs3lC, tO_2 tg4/2/C and O 2_Ls3/B sitlrated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad. The enant has 2 \ ^.-J \ - occupied premises No.1O-2-193lD forming part o[ 1O-2-193 and lO-2-194 l2 lC, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 97Ol - plus property tax. Although there was a written rental agreement executed on 01.12.1993, it expired on 30.IO.1994, and since then, the tenancy has been ora[. The landlord claims that the present rate of rent for similar premises in that area is around Rs.10,OO0/- per month. Considering this, the landlord has increased the rent of adjoining prcmises to Rs-4,950/-, although they could fetch a fair rent of Rs- l O,OOO/ - per month. The landlord expects the tenant to enhancc the rent to Rs. 10,00O/- per month, given the premises prime location on Entrenchment Road, Marredpally, Secunderabad, with easy access to hospitais, educational insti[utions, places of worship, railway station, bus depot, market, and other amenities As such, the tenant is liable for payment of cnhanced rent of Rs. 10,O00/- per month.

4. The tenant hled a counter to the said petition alleging that landlord has hled multiple proceedings, including eviction petition, causing hardship and harassmenl. Despite agreeing to enhance the rent by lOoo/o, the landlord claims an exorbitant and unreasonable rent of Rs. 1O,OOO/- per month. 5. The - tenant disputes the landlord's claim that the prerr ist:s rs locatecl in a comrnercial area, stating that they are in a rr:siclcntial arezt u,ith no nearby shopping complexes. The prenrises are old, rr:quiring extensive repairs, which the landlord }.ras neglectecl despite requests. The tenant alleged that the rlemand for Rs.10,00()/ per month is unjustified and propose s :r I O0Zo rent increase ro Rs.1,94O/- per mon[h with a I O% ncre:lse every thrce years. Hence, prayed for dismissal of thc ltetition with excmplanr costs.

5. Basing on the said averments, the Lrial Court framecl thrce points for consideration. On behalf of the I lndlord pvvs. l and 2 wcre examined and Exs.P. I to P.32 werc rnarked. On bchalf of the tenant, Rw. 1 was examined and E.xs. R I to R.7 wcrc markcd and also got marked Exs.X. 1 lo X.7. Basing on thc evidence on record, the trial Court fixec the rent (r) Rs.4,950/ - per month. Aggrieved by the said oricr.. thr: tenant filcd Rent Appeal which was dismissed by the a rpr:llzrte Cor-rrr affi rming the ordcr of Rent Controller. Aggrieved l.rv thc samc, the prescnt civil revision petition is fited. 4

5. Heard Sri Manu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P. Ram Chander, learned counsel for the respondent.

1. The contention o[ learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that both the Rent controller and the Rent Control appellate Court failed to consider the submissions made by the tenant against the evidence adcluced by the parties and the landlord who filed Rent Control case has not mentioned the extent of premises in his petition except stating the schedule, no document is hled to show that the schedulc premises is 22O Sq' feet, the Rent Controller and thc appellate Court basing on assumptions and presumptions concluded that it is 22O Sq feet and hxed the rate @ Rs.25/ per square [eet. Both the Courts have not considered the submission of the tenant that the subject building is a 3O years old building He further contended that though the Rent Controller and the appcllate Court discarded the evidence of Pw-2, ought to have considered his evidence regarding the extent of property and without there being any evidence to prove the contention of landlord, yet the rent was enhanced about more than 5OO7o from the existing rent of Rs.97O/- to Rs.4,95O/-, u'hich is against the provision under Section 4 of the Act. Furlhcr no document is filed to 5 prove th.ll it is commercial property, the subject property is a residentia. property and for residential properfy l-rey fixed the rent of li:s.25/ - per Square feet and there is n I cvidence of prevailir.rg rent, that there is no pleading with rcgar d to premises as commercial property and aiso the extent of prenrises. g. Learned counsel for the tenant further sr lbmit.ted that there is tr,r evicle nce to prove that the schedule premiscs is 220 Sq leet and theri: is no evidence to show that it is a cornmercial property. As per the rental agreement, the t:nant has to enhancc rent (/l lO(% for over three years. Therclore, it cannot be Rs.4,95O/- even according Lo the rental agrrcrnent. The evidence of hv.2 is no way helpful to the tenant 'lhough the evidencc of Pu,.2 was discarded by both the Courts they considercrl thc contentions of landlord without there being any evidencc. As such, requested the Court.to set asi(le the order of zrppellat(' ,lourl.

9. On the other hancl, learned counsel for the Irrndlord would submit that thc Iandlord hled Ex.P. 1-Sketch map rlong rvith the plaint, wherein the schedule premises is shown ar; 45O Sq. feet. Though the trial Court has not relied on Ex.P, I , rcliecl on the cvidencc ol Pu,.2 and considered it as 220 Sq. fc,'t, in firct the 6 r landlord is entitled for rent @ Rs.45O/ - per square ie e t. Further learned counsel contended that lhe subject propert]z is a commercial property at entrenchmcnt road of Maredpa[y, Secunderabad. Therefore, the contention of tenant is contrary to the pleading of landlord. In fact for the same premises in the said locality an amount of Rs. 1O,O00/ - per month u,ould be letching as rent but the trial Court hxed only Rs.4,950/- as affirmed by the appellate Court. In fact it is meager amount rrvhich is hxed in the year 2011. As such, requested the Court to dismiss this revision petition.

10. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and the material on record, now, the point to be considered is whether the order in R.A.No.168 of 2017 requires any interference ? POINT:

11.. The first contention of the tenant is that the landlord has not filed any document to show the extent of property as 22O Sq. feet but he referred to schedule of proper[u in the Rent Control Case. 7 lZ. Going lhrough the said contention, in the petition schedule, the property is mentioned as Mutgi pre nises bearing No. 1O-2 1,93 I D , and the boundaries of the said property, but has not mcntiorled the extent of property in the petition or in the schedule ol property, whereas, the landlord hz,s filed Ex.p. 1 Sketch mzrp showirrg the extent of property. Furl her, the Rent Con troller and Lhe appeliate Court have considere< I t.he evidence of Pw.2, u hert:in hc has stated that the premises ol the tenant were dout,lc t.hc premises of Pw.2. Therefore, it c rnnot be said that the e;<Lerrt of properB/ w.as not mentionecl in t te petition by the Iandlord.

13. The second contention of learned counsel for the tenant is that the subjecL propcrtv is not a commercial prolrcrq,, but it is only a reside ntial property, whereas in the cor rrtrer. it was mentione d as Mulgi but not the house.. In cross cxamination, the tenant has:rdmittcd that there are some reside ntial portions and ['ive t,: six commercial shops, that Secunder rlrad Railway Station is 1% krns aw:rv from the petition schedule property. He also admit.ted that thcre are number of Nursing H onres in Easl Maredpall.,, art zr ancl that Deccan Club is opposi[e to the petition s<:hedule propcrt_v. He also admitted thst the road in 8 r front of petition schedule property is entrenchment road, The admission o[ tenant in his cross-examina[ion itself shows that the subject property is a commercial propert5z. Therefore, therc is no illegality in the order of both the Courts deciding that subjcct property is a commercial property. Further the contention of learned counsel for the tenant is that as of now no rcpairs were made, even though it is an old building. However, in the cross examination he admitted that he has not issued any no[ice requesting the landlord to renew the rental agrccment or requested the landlord for making repairs and u.hen Lhe witness was confronted with photographs, he admitted lhc photographs which are commercial properties of that area, shows tha[ it is a commercial property. No notice u,as issued by the tenant requesting for renewal of renlal agreement or lor carrying out any repairs. The third contention of the learned cour-rsel for the tenant is that there is no pleading in the petition u,ith regard to the commercial property, u,hereas, the averments o[ the petition shows that it is a commercial property in entrenchment road and fetching a rent of Rs.1o,o0o/.- per month which is also a pleading of the landlord. 9 l+. The t:vidence on record placed in this case is cf Rl.s. 1 and 2. Rv. 1 is the owner of propt,rty and pw.2 is one ol the tcnants. The evidenr:e ol Pw.2 is not considered by the trizrl rlourt as it is inconsistent with thc petition a\erments. Exs.p.2(r to p.30 are filed showing that Meghzrna Communications are paying Rs. 10,000/ per month in the adjacent mugli as r;uch, basing on the sanre, Lhc Rent Controller fixcd the rent a._ Rs.4,9SO/- which was up held by the appeltate Court. Hence, there is no illegality in thc order ol- Rent Controller as alfirmed by thc appellate Ctourt. I find no reasons to interfere w rth the said orders. There arc no mcrits in this revision petition and the same is liakrle to bc dismissed.

15. Accordinglv, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No closed Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISI-ANT REGISTRAR fi;P CTTON OFFICE R I;E To,

1. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (!^'ith records' if any) 2. The Additional Rent Controller, Secunderanad. (with recorcs, if any) 3. One CC to Sri Nerella Malyadri, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P. Ram Chander, Advocate IOPUC]

5. Two CD Co pres VC/gh HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 I ORDER CRP.No.4773 of 2017 -{tll. S14 rc. 31_) 1 0 t,EP 2116 (( ( (l \l ''\\\: .-. r;'l), .,\.r- : __ t2 '-: ''- DISMISSING THE'CRP WITHOUT COSTS. (