Tirumala Estates vs Dr. Chamundeshwari
2022 Latest Caselaw 3515 Tel

            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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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