Partly allowed

Mrs. Nasreen Jahan, v. Mrs. Sairabanu

Telangana HC11 Nov 2014CRP/2428/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, reviewing an appeal against a rent enhancement order, held that the failure to prove similar premises' rent at Rs.12,000 did not negate the power to enhance rent. It fixed the fair rent at Rs.5,000 per month while restoring the periodic enhancement of 10% every two years.

What did the court decide?

Rent reduced to Rs.5,000 per month with periodic enhancement of 10% every two years.

Mrs. Nasreen Jahan, Vs Mrs. Sairabanu — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

C.R.P. No.2428 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners are the tenants in respect of the premises owned by the 1^st respondent. R.C.No.137 of 2006 was filed by the 1^st respondent in the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 4 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short ‘the Act’), for fixation of rent, at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the lease commenced in the year 1991, with the rent of Rs.150/- per month, and by the time the RC was filed, the rent was being paid @ Rs.700/per month. The facts pertaining to the claim for enhancement of the rent were pleaded. The petitioners opposed the RC. The learned Rent Controller allowed the RC, through order dated 25-06-2010, by enhancing the rent to Rs.6,000/- per month. A direction was issued for enhancement of the rent by 10% for every two years.

¶5

The petitioners filed R.A.No.208 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, challenging the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal was dismissed, through order dated 06-06-2011. However, the direction as to enhancement of rent @ 10% for every two years was set aside. This revision is filed, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the lower Appellate Court.

¶6

Heard Mr. Md. Osman Shaheed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Adbul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned counsel for the 1^st

¶7

respondent.

¶8

The petitioners do not dispute that they are the tenants of the schedule premises. The lease commenced in the year 1991, and by the time the RC was filed, the rent was Rs.700/- per month. Because the original owner was residing in a foreign country, the matter was pursued through her G.P.A.

¶9

On behalf of the 1^st respondent, Ms.Nayara Banu, the G.P.A., was examined as PW-1, and she filed Exs.P-1 to P-41. On behalf of the petitioners, one Mr. Moiz Mohd. Khan, was examined as RW-1, and no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court was of the view that the rent can be enhanced to Rs.6,000/- per month, and the same was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

¶10

The main plank of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have observed that the 1^st respondent failed to prove that the rent for the similar premises in the neighbourhood is Rs.12,000/- per month, and still, enhancement was ordained and sustained.

¶11

It is no doubt true that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court made an observation to the effect that the 1^st respondent failed to prove that the rent for the similar premises in the neighbourhood is Rs.12,000/- per month. The failure was, about the figure – Rs.12,000/-, and not in relation to any enhancement at all. The various documents, that were placed before the Court were taken into account, and the enhancement was ordered to Rs.6,000/per month. Even there, no specific document was relied upon. This Court is of the view that the fair rent can be fixed @ Rs.5,000/- per month, however, with periodical enhancement at the rate of 10% for every two years.

¶12

The C.R.P is partly allowed, reducing the rent for the premises to Rs.5,000/- per month, however, with periodical enhancement of 10% for every two years.

¶13

The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P., shall also stand disposed of.

¶14

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶16

Dt.11-11-2014.

¶17

Mrs. Nasreen Jahan, v. Mrs. Sairabanu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Nasreen Jahan, v. Mrs. Sairabanu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Abdul Layeeq Vs Mrs. Nahib Jabeen

Mohd lshrathullal, Vs Surrender singh Bajaj

Karike Nageshwar Rao Vs Boorugu Mahabaleshwar Rao

Mohd Ismail Vs Mohd Ismail

Syed Samiuddin Vs Syed Ibrahim Hassan Kazmi , Aslam Kazmi

Parsuram Shinde, Vs Smt. Meera Bai