HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1316 of 2021
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by M/s.Tirumala Estates represented by its Managing Partner Mr.T.Madan Mohan against Dr.Chamundershwari represented by her power of Attorney S.Jayalakshmi, W/o. Late N.S.Sundra Murthy, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.119 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in which the order dated 24.07.2019 passed in R.C.No.70 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, for fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.10,920/- per month (364 square feet x Rs.30/- per square feet = Rs.10.920 per month) was confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as landlady and tenant. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlady.
3. The petitioner herein is a tenant in the schedule property consisting of Mezzanuine floor situated at Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad, and he was paying rent of 2 Rs.2,000/- per month exclusive of electricity and municipal property taxes. The landlady requested the Court to fix fair rent Rs.27,120/- per month at the rate of Rs.80/- per square feet with an escalation of 20% for every two years on the existing rent.
4. The tenant would state that the area of the property is 250 square feet but not 364 square feet as on the date of lease agreement dated 26.04.2007 and he also paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards interest free deposit. He would also assert that he filed a suit in O.S.No.920 of 2014 for injunction and as such the landlady filed the rent control case against the tenant as a counter blast to injunction suit. The tenant would also assert that the premises is not in good condition as it was constructed about 30 years back, for which he spent Rs.2,50,000/- for renovating the flooring, re-plastering the roof walls and installed furniture, fixtures and fittings. He would also state that the entire business of the Abids was shifted to Dilsukhnagar, Kukatpally and Gachibowli and he is paying the entire maintenance, electricity etc. and that there is no water and parking facilities to the petition schedule property and it was purchased by the landlady for Rs.64,400/- with a rental value of Rs.1,000/- per month. He would also assert that the 3 landlady clearly admitted that the location of the property is situated in Chirag Ali Lane, but not in Abids. He would also assert that during his tenure as a tenant, he paid more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards rent, which is more than the value of the property, but the trial Court erred in fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.30/- per square feet and it was confirmed by the appellate Court without independently appreciating the facts. The tenant also disputed the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the mother of the landlady. He would also submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the property can fetch Rs.30/- per square feet and as such requested the Court to set aside the order of the Appellate Court in which it confirmed the order of the trial Court.
5. R.C.No.70 of 2015 was filed by the landlady against the tenant for fixing of rent from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.29,120/- with progressive enhancement of 20% for every two years on the existing rent. The petition schedule property is part and parcel of office bearing No.32A, Mezzanine floor, admeasuring 364 square feet situated at Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. The landlady would submit that the premises in question was let out to the tenant under a lease agreement dated 26.04.2007 and he paid Rs.12,000/- towards refundable 4 security deposit. Per contra, the tenant would submit that the schedule property was constructed about 40 years back and there is no demand for it and that in the year 2007 the premises was in a dilapidated condition and the age of the building is 30 years and he invested Rs.2,50,000/- for renovation and moreover it was located in a bye-lane and is for away from Abids. The tenant would also submit that he is doing real estate business and that due to State Division and demonetization the entire business was collapsed and as such the existing rent paid by him is proper and reasonable.
6. The landlady examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P3 on her behalf. The tenant himself was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 and R2 on his behalf. Copy of the lease deed was marked as R1.
7. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, observed that though the tenant stated that he incurred Rs.2,50,000/- towards renovation, he has not filed any document to substantiate his version. Copy of the judgment in O.S.No.290 of 2013 dated 11.10.2013 is marked as Ex.R2 through P.W.2. The said suit was filed by the wife of P.W.2 against the tenant for eviction. P.W.2 deposed that 5 Medwin Hospital is nearer to the petition schedule premises and it was closed in the year 2015 for renovation. R.W.1, the tenant, admitted in his cross-examination that Abids Main Road is at a distance of 1.5 KMs from the petition schedule premises and that Santosh Sapna Theatres are located at a distance of one kilometre from the suit schedule premises and there are cloth shops, grocery shops and medical shops situated in the main road of Abids and till the date of inception of the tenancy he is paying rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and for the last twelve years there is change in land values. The trial Court also considered the dispute raised by the tenant with regard to the extent of the premises as 250 square feet instead of 364 square feet and held that the area of the premises is 364 square feet. The trial Court relying upon the judgment held that at the time of enhancing the rent, the Court can take judicial note of the enormous manifold increase of rents throughout observed that the entire Raghava Ratna Towers is a commercial property and thus fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.30/- per square feet and directed the tenant to pay rent at the rate of Rs.10,920/- per month from the date of filing the petition and also directed that the landlady is entitled for periodical enhancement at the rate of 10% on the existing rate of rent for every two years and also 6 directed the tenant to pay the enhanced arrears of rent within two months from the date of order. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court also discussed the arguments of both the counsel at length and confirmed the order of the trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the tenant would argue that the fair rent was enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,920/-, which is 500% increase and it is against law. He further argued that the trial Court without any basis fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.30/- per square feet for the entire premises. He would also argue that even if the rent is enhanced by 5% every year, the current rent would not be more than Rs.5,420/- per month and that the premises in question is 30 years old and that there is no parking facility and the tenant is maintaining the property since its inception and he also paid Rs.12,000/- towards refundable security apart from paid 20% of the sale consideration at the time of taking the premises on lease and as such fixing of rent at the rate of Rs.10,920/- is erroneous and exorbitant. Learned counsel also argued that even 10% of enhancement is taken into account, it would come to Rs.3,200/- per month but the learned Rent Controller abnormally enhanced the rent.
7
9. The Appellate Court after considering the various case law cited before it, held that the tenant has not enhanced the rent for more than twelve years, though he obtained the premises for commercial use. It was further observed that as the tenant is carrying real estate business in the premises from more than twelve years, it can be concluded that the petition schedule property is in good and habitable condition, though it is more than 30 years old. In fact, the landlady sought for increase of rental value from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.80/- per square feet, but the trial Court fixed at the rate of Rs.30/- per square feet by considering all the factors into consideration that the petition schedule premises is situated in a busy locality in a commercial area though the building is old but not uninhabitable. It was also observed that enhancement of rent from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.10,920/- per month is just and little over 1/3rd of the fair rent at the rate of Rs.29,120/- claimed by the landlady and thus there is no need to interfere with order of the learned Rent Controller and accordingly confirmed the judgment.
10. The appellant-tenant raised the grounds in this revision which were raised in the appeal and those aspects were already considered by the Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any 8 reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Court and accordingly it was upheld.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order under challenge.
12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall also dismissed in the light of this final order.
____________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.
7th JULY, 2022.
PGS