R.Ajay Kumar, Secbad vs Ch.Narayana Rao, Secbad Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3901 Tel

           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3132 and 5390 of 2016

                           ORDER

1. C.R.P.No.3132 of 2016 is filed by the landlords aggrieved

by the order dated 06.04.2016 passed in R.A.No.193 of 2015 on

the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes

Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge allowed the

appeal in part and the fair rent fixation order dated 15.09.2015

passed in R.C.No.12 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional

Rent Controller at Secunderabad, wherein the fair rent of the

petition schedule property was fixed at Rs.14,500/- per month

is modified to Rs.10,000/- per month. C.R.P.No.5390 of 2016 is

filed by the tenant against the same order.

2. Cheela Narayana Rao and Cheela Harish are land lords

and they filed R.C.No.12 of 2014 against R.Ajay Kumar-tenant

requesting the Court for fixation of fair rent at the rate of

Rs.150/- per square feet per month with a periodical

enhancement at rate of 30% on the fair rent fixed in respect of

the petition schedule property. The trial Court after considering

the arguments on either side, enhanced the rent from Rs.950/-

per month to Rs.14,500/- per month from the date of filing the

petition. Aggrieved by the said order the tenant preferred an

appeal and the Appellate Court by its order dated 06.04.2016

modified the order and reduced the rent to Rs.10,000/- per

month from Rs.14,500/- per month. Dissatisfied with the said

order, the land lord preferred C.R.P.No.3132 of 2016 and

whereas the tenant preferred appeal against the said

enhancement vide C.R.P.No.5390 of 2016.

3. The petitioners in rent control case would submit that

they are the absolute owners of the mulgi bearing premises

Nos.2-1-1 and 2-1-192 (Old mulgi No.1222) consisting of

ground and first floor admeasuring 810 square feet (petition

schedule property) situated at General Bazar, Secunderabad.

They would further assert that they became owners by virtue of

the Will executed by their grandmother-Smt.Cheela

Kanakalakshmi on 10.12.2006 and she expired on 17.02.2008.

The petitioners subsequently on 29.10.2013 entered into a

registered partnership deed bearing document No.1683 of 2013.

Smt.Cheela Kanakalakshmi was the owner of the petition

schedule property as per the sale deed dated 03.05.1957

executed by her vendor. The respondent is tenant in occupation

of the petition schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.950/-

payable on or before fifth of each month and he is also liable to

pay municipal taxes. The petition schedule mulgi was let out by

the grandmother of the petitioners to the grandfather of the

respondent-R.Kanakaiah and after the death of his son

R.Lakshman Rao, the present respondent-tenant only legal heir,

is carrying on business. He filed R.C.No.179 of 2002 for

depositing the rents at the rate of Rs.950/- per month against

Cheela Kanakalakshmi and Cheela Sriramulu and the same was

allowed.

4. The case of the land lords is that the petition schedule

property is near the bus stop, railway station, shopping centres,

Government Office and commercial establishments just about

500 meters from the main M.G.Road. The shops and the offices

in the vicinity have great demand and the value of the property

and the rentals were steeply increased. Though cases were filed

for the purpose of bona fide requirement on the ground of

sub-letting, they are not prevented from claiming fair rent as the

tenant cannot continue by paying the meagre rent. The inflation

has grown hundred fold and the market value of the property

and the rental value of it is increased. Therefore, the meagre

amount of Rs.950/- per month from the last several decades is

to be enhanced. The tenants of the neighbouring shops in the

same building were paying rent at the rate of Rs.100/- to

Rs.200/- per square feet and as such, they requested the Court

to fix a fair rent of the petition schedule premises at the rate of

Rs.150/- per square feet. They would also submit that the

petition schedule property got all the amenities like electricity

and he has to pay the manifold increase in the taxes imposed by

the Government and the Municipal authorities.

5. The tenant in his counter submitted that C.Sriramulu

was collecting rents for a long duration as it was let out to the

grandfather of the respondent and his grandfather enjoyed the

said property as a tenant and thereafter the father of the

respondent enjoyed the property by constructing the premises

at his cost with the consent of the original owner Smt. Cheela

Kanakalakshmi and her son Sriramulu. He was regularly paying

rent at the rate of Rs.950/- per month and the monthly rent is

being paid in the succeeding month since there is no fixed date

for payment of rent. He would further submit he was regularly

paying the rents to C.Sriramulu but he failed to collect the rents

that were due in the year 2002 and as such he forced to file

R.C.No.179 of 2002 seeking to deposit the rents, which was

allowed and thereafter he deposited the entire rent for one year

in advance and it was withdrawn by C.Sriramulu vide cheque

bearing No.5361104 of an amount of Rs.36,100/-. He would

also assert that there was relationship of landlord and tenant

between C.Sriramulu and himself and that the landlords have

to prove their rights over the petition schedule property. He also

disputed the Will said to have been executed Smt.Cheela

Kanakalakshmi in favour of landlords and further stated that

the petitioners are not owners or grandsons of Smt.Cheela

Kanakalakshmi. He also submitted that petty vendors are

carrying on business on road and it does not belong to them

and they cannot claim any licence from them.

6. R.W.1 admitted that M.G.Road is half-to-one furlong away

from the petition schedule property and now-a-days it is very

difficult to get a mulgi in general bazaar locality and he also

filed rental receipts under Exs.R1 and R2 which were obtained

from the opposite shop tenant of the petition schedule property

in which the rent was shown as Rs.14,500/- for the premises

Nos.3-4-413 and 3-4-412. The signature of the owners in

Exs.R1 and R2 is not disputed. Therefore, the trial Court

considering the law laid down in KESAR BAI (DIED) PER LR

V/s. D.KAMAL KUMAR1 in which it was held that Court can

take judicial notice of enormous and manifold increase in rents

in fixing rents under Rent Control Act, and also the case law

2015 (3) ALT 300

reported in SYED ZAMIL ABBAS V/s. YAMIN2 to the effect that

the same rent which is being paid by the tenants in the adjacent

shops would be the fair measure of rent which the tenant

should pay and held that from several decades the tenant was

paying rent at the rate of Rs.950/- per month and the Rent

Control Court has got the jurisdiction to fix the fair rent as on

the date of the application but there is periodical increase of

rent to off-set the time gap between the date of application and

the date of adjudication and the area in which the petition

schedule property is located is totally commercial area and

accordingly enhanced the rent to Rs.14,500/- per month from

the date of filing of the petition. In the said case the original

receipts under Exs.R1 and R2 are also filed by the respondent.

Aggrieved by the said order the tenant preferred an appeal. He

again disputed the ownership of the landlord and so also the

jural relationship between the landlord and tenant. The

Appellate Court after adjudication of the case clearly held that

the tenant cannot question the Will, rights or title of the owners.

Considering the same evidence on record, the appellate Court

also held that as per Exs.R1 and R2 the rent for similar type of

accommodation in that locality is between Rs.6,000/- and

2004 (4) SCC 871

Rs.7,000/- per month, the tenants named in Exs.R1 and R2

who are having shops in front of the petition schedule property

are paying rents at the rate of Rs.7,250/- per month and as

such he calculated the rent from 2002 onwards at the rate of

Rs.950/- per month which is enhanced to 20% for the existing

rate of rent and arrived at Rs.10,158.50/- per month in the year

2015 as per the table mentioned in the Judgment and finally

modified the order of the trial Court and fixed the rent at

Rs.10,000/- per month.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the landlords would

submit that the present rent in the said area is Rs.90,000/- per

month. As per the law laid down in KESAR BAI's (cited supra) it

was held that when there is no enhancement of rent for more

than forty years, then the Court can fix fair rent taking into

judicial notice of enormous and manifold increase in rents. He

would further argue that the rent was not enhanced from

Rs.950/- per month from the year 2002 to 2015 for more than a

decade as such the deduction of the amount by the appellate

Court is not proper.

8. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the mulgis are

located in the commercial area. The Rent Control Court relying

upon Exs.R1 and R2 observed that the rents of the

neighbouring shops was Rs.14,500/- per month. As the petition

schedule property mulgis were also situated in the same

locality, fair rent of Rs.14,500/- is to be fixed from the date of

filing the petition, whereas the Appellate Court also basing on

same receipts under Exs.R1 and R2 held that the rents in that

locality are Rs.7,250/- per month and thus he calculated the

rent at the rate of 20% enhancement on the existing rent of

Rs.950/- per month and arrived to the figure Rs.10,158.50/-

per month and thus modified the order to Rs.10,000/- per

month.

9. Admittedly, the rent fixed in the year 2002 was not

enhanced till the filing of the Rent Control case in the year

2014. Even when the tenant filed R.C.No.179 of 2002 he

deposited the rent of Rs.950/- per month. In fact the rental

deed was entered between grandparents of the parties herein

and as such the Rent Control Court specifically held that the

tenant was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.950/- per month

from more than a decade and it has got jurisdiction to fix the

fair rent only as on the date of the application, and therefore,

considered the periodical increase of rent to off-set the time gap

between the date of application and the date of adjudication ie.,

15.09.2015 and rightly fixed the rent at the rate of Rs.14,500/-

per month. Whereas the appellate Court though stated that as

per Ex.R1 and R2 the tenants were paying rent of Rs.14,500/-

to the landlords towards rents for non-residential

accommodations took by them in the months of March/April,

2015, has taken the rent in the local area as Rs.7,250/- per

month and made a separate calculation and modified the order

to Rs.10,000/- per month. Court can take judicial notice of

enormous and manifold increase in the rents in fixing fair rent.

10. Considering the rent, location of the mulgis and the fact

that the rent was not enhanced for more than a decade till the

landlords file an application for fixing of fair rent and also as

rightly stated by the Rent Controller that the periodical increase

of the rent from the time gap of the date of application to the

date of adjudication, this Court finds that the order of the

Appellate Court deserves to be set aside, by confirming the order

of the Rent Controller.

11. In the result, C.R.P.No.3132 of 2016 filed by the landlord

is allowed confirming the order dated 15.09.2015 passed in

R.C.No.12 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional Rent

Controller at Secunderabad. C.R.P.No.5390 of 2016 filed by the

tenant is dismissed. In consequence, the order dated

06.04.2016 passed in R.A.No.193 of 2015 is set aside.

12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision

shall stand closed in the light of this final order.

____________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.

27th JULY, 2022.

PGS