Telangana High Court
Sri P.Shekhar vs Sri P.Mahaveerchand on 30 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4773 OF 2017
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 02.06.2017 passed in R.A.No.168 of 2015 on
the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad
by confirming the order dated 20.08.2015 passed in R.C.No.62
of 2011 by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad (for
short 'Rent Controller').
2. R.A.No.168 of 2015 was filed by the revision petitioner
against the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.No.62 of 2011,
filed by the respondent herein who is the landlord for fixation of
fair rent under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act (for short 'Act').
The petitioner herein is the tenant. For the sake of convenience
the parties are referred to as 'Landlord' and 'Tenant'.
3. The landlord is the owner of four premises, bearing
municipal Nos.10-2-193, 10-2-193/A, 10-2-193/2/B and
10-2-194/2/B, 10-2-193/C, 10-2-194/2/C and 10-2-193/B
situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad. The tenant has
occupied premises No.10-2-193/D forming part of 10-2-193 and
10-2-194/2/C, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 970/- plus
property tax. Although there was a written rental agreement
executed on 01.12.1993, it expired on 30.10.1994, and since
then, the tenancy has been oral. The landlord claims that the
present rate of rent for similar premises in that area is around
Rs.10,000/- per month. Considering this, the landlord has
increased the rent of adjoining premises to Rs.4,950/-, although
they could fetch a fair rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The
landlord expects the tenant to enhance the rent to Rs.10,000/-
per month, given the premises prime location on Entrenchment
Road, Marredpally, Secunderabad, with easy access to
hospitals, educational institutions, places of worship, railway
station, bus depot, market, and other amenities. As such, the
tenant is liable for payment of enhanced rent of Rs.10,000/- per
month.
4. The tenant filed a counter to the said petition alleging that
landlord has filed multiple proceedings, including eviction
petition, causing hardship and harassment. Despite agreeing to
enhance the rent by 100%, the landlord claims an exorbitant
and unreasonable rent of Rs.10,000/- per month. 5. The
tenant disputes the landlord's claim that the premises is located
in a commercial area, stating that they are in a residential area
with no nearby shopping complexes. The premises are old,
requiring extensive repairs, which the landlord has neglected
despite requests. The tenant alleged that the demand for
Rs.10,000/- per month is unjustified and proposes a 100% rent
increase to Rs.1,940/- per month with a 10% increase every
three years. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition with
exemplary costs.
5. Basing on the said averments, the trial Court framed
three points for consideration. On behalf of the landlord Pws.1
and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.32 were marked. On
behalf of the tenant, Rw.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.7
were marked and also got marked Exs.X.1 to X.7. Basing on
the evidence on record, the trial Court fixed the rent @
Rs.4,950/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant
filed Rent Appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court
affirming the order of Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same,
the present civil revision petition is filed.
6. Heard Sri Manu, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Sri P. Ram Chander, learned counsel for the
respondent.
7. The contention of 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 adduced 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 filed to show that the schedule premises is 220 Sq.
feet, the Rent Controller and the appellate Court basing on
assumptions and presumptions concluded that it is 220 Sq feet
and fixed the rate @ Rs.25/- per square feet. Both the Courts
have not considered the submission of the tenant that the
subject building is a 30 years old building. He further
contended that though the Rent Controller and the appellate
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 500% from the existing
rent of Rs.970/- to Rs.4,950/-, which is against the provision
under Section 4 of the Act. Further no document is filed to
prove that it is commercial property, the subject property is a
residential property and for residential property they fixed the
rent of Rs.25/- per Square feet and there is no evidence of
prevailing rent, that there is no pleading with regard to premises
as commercial property and also the extent of premises.
8. Learned counsel for the tenant further submitted that
there is no evidence to prove that the schedule premises is 220
Sq feet and there is no evidence to show that it is a commercial
property. As per the rental agreement, the tenant has to
enhance rent @ 10% for over three years. Therefore, it cannot
be Rs.4,950/- even according to the rental agreement. The
evidence of Pw.2 is no way helpful to the tenant. Though the
evidence of Pw.2 was discarded by both the Courts they
considered the contentions of landlord without there being any
evidence. As such, requested the Court to set aside the order of
appellate Court.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord would
submit that the landlord filed Ex.P.1-Sketch map along with the
plaint, wherein the schedule premises is shown as 450 Sq. feet.
Though the trial Court has not relied on Ex.P.1, relied on the
evidence of Pw.2 and considered it as 220 Sq. feet, in fact the
landlord is entitled for rent @ Rs.450/- per square feet. Further
learned counsel contended that the subject property is a
commercial property at entrenchment road of Maredpally,
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.10,000/- per month would be
fetching as rent but the trial Court fixed only Rs.4,950/- as
affirmed by the appellate Court. In fact it is meager amount
which is fixed 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 220
Sq. feet but he referred to schedule of property in the Rent
Control Case.
12. Going through the said contention, in the petition
schedule, the property is mentioned as Mulgi premises bearing
No.10-2-193/D, and the boundaries of the said property, but
has not mentioned the extent of property in the petition or in
the schedule of property, whereas, the landlord has filed Ex.P.1
Sketch map showing the extent of property. Further, the Rent
Controller and the appellate Court have considered the evidence
of Pw.2, wherein he has stated that the premises of the tenant
were double the premises of Pw.2. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the extent of property was not mentioned in the petition by
the landlord.
13. The second contention of learned counsel for the tenant is
that the subject property is not a commercial property, but it is
only a residential property, whereas in the counter, it was
mentioned as Mulgi but not the house. In cross-examination,
the tenant has admitted that there are some residential portions
and five to six commercial shops, that Secunderabad Railway
Station is 1½ kms away from the petition schedule property. He
also admitted that there are number of Nursing Homes in East
Maredpally area and that Deccan Club is opposite to the
petition schedule property. He also admitted that the road in
front of petition schedule property is entrenchment road. The
admission of tenant in his cross-examination itself shows that
the subject property is a commercial property. Therefore, there
is no illegality in the order of both the Courts deciding that
subject property is a commercial property. Further the
contention of learned counsel for the tenant is that as of now no
repairs were made, even though it is an old building. However,
in the cross examination he admitted that he has not issued
any notice requesting the landlord to renew the rental
agreement or requested the landlord for making repairs and
when the witness was confronted with photographs, he
admitted the photographs which are commercial properties of
that area, shows that it is a commercial property. No notice was
issued by the tenant requesting for renewal of rental agreement
or for carrying out any repairs. The third contention of the
learned counsel for the tenant is that there is no pleading in the
petition with regard to the commercial property, whereas, the
averments of the petition shows that it is a commercial property
in entrenchment road and fetching a rent of Rs.10,000/- per
month which is also a pleading of the landlord.
14. The evidence on record placed in this case is of Pws.1 and
2. Pw.1 is the owner of property and Pw.2 is one of the tenants.
The evidence of Pw.2 is not considered by the trial Court as it is
inconsistent with the petition averments. Exs.P.26 to P.30 are
filed showing that Meghana Communications are paying
Rs.10,000/- per month in the adjacent mugli as such, basing
on the same, the Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.4,950/-
which was up held by the appellate Court. Hence, there is no
illegality in the order of Rent Controller as affirmed by the
appellate Court. I find no reasons to interfere with the said
orders. There are no merits in this revision petition and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :30.04.2025
Rds
