High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition regarding enhancement of fair rent for a heritage building. The Court found no patent perversity or gross failure of justice, upholding the Rent Controller's decision based on market value evidence.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.2 7 0 1 of 2 0 1 9
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is filed by the petitioner/ tenant, challenging the judgment, dated 27.09.2019, passed in R.C.A.No.60 of 2018 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the order, dated 20.06.2018, passed in R.C.No.165 of 2014 by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, fixing the fair rent @ Rs.10,920/ - per month, exclusive of electricity and water consumption charges from the date of filing of the petition in respect of the petition schedule property bearing No.15-6-219, admeasuring 9’.10” x 12’ situated at Begum Bazar, Kolsawadi, Hyderabad, was confirmed.
2 . Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.
3 . The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ tenant would contend that the learned Principal Rent Controller enhanced the fair rent of the petition schedule property from Rs.950/ - per month to Rs.10,920/ - per month without any basis, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court. The petition schedule property is a heritage building and is in a dilapidated condition. It cannot even be demolished by GHMC, unless permitted under law governing the heritage buildings. The petition schedule property, being old and in dilapidated
2
condition, cannot be used for commercial purpose. The petition schedule property is not having any proper approach road and therefore, cannot attract tenants to pay the rent at the enhanced rate. Both the Courts below have failed to consider these aspects. Therefore, the impugned judgment is erroneous and ultimately prayed to set aside the judgment impugned in this revision and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.
4 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ landlords supported the impugned judgment and contended that the trial Court was right in enhancing the fair rent from Rs.950/ - per month to Rs.10,920/ - per month, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court. There is ample evidence on record to prove that the rents in the locality in which the petition schedule property is situated are much more than the enhanced fair rent fixed by the trial Court. There is nothing to interfere with the judgment under challenge and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
5 . In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows:
“ W h et h er t h e j u dgm en t , dat ed 2 7 .0 9 .2 0 1 9 , passed in R.C.A.No.6 0 of 2 0 1 8 by t h e Ch ief Ju dge, Cit y Sm all Cau ses Cou r t , Hy der abad, con fir m in g t h e or der , dat ed 2 0 .0 6 .2 0 1 8 , passed in R.C.No.1 6 5 of 2 0 1 4 by t h e Pr in cipal Ren t Con t r oller , Hy der abad, en h an cin g t h e fair r en t fr om Rs.9 5 0 / - per m on t h t o Rs.1 0 .9 2 0 / - per m on t h in r espect of t h e pet it ion sch edu le pr oper t y is liable t o be set aside?”
3
6 . There is no dispute with regard to the identification and extent of the petition schedule property. The revision petitioner/ tenant is only disputing the enhancement of fair rent from Rs.950/ - per month to 10,920/ - per month in respect of the petition schedule property by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court.
7 . Before the learned Principal Rent Controller, the respondent No.2/ landlord was examined as P.W.1. He deposed that the petition schedule property is admeasuring 9'10" x 12' and the tenancy commenced in the year 1982. The monthly rent was enhanced for the last time in the year 1999 to Rs.950/ - per month and the same rent is being paid by the revision petitioner/ tenant, although he agreed to enhance the rent at 5% on existing monthly rent. In spite of requests made by the landlords, the revision petitioner/ tenant failed to enhance the monthly rent. The petition schedule property is situated in the heart of the city, i.e., Begum Bazar which is a biggest commercial market in India. The prevailing rent in the locality for the similar accommodation is @ Rs.35,000/ - per month. The monthly rent has not been enhanced by the revision petitioner/ tenant and he is enjoying the petition schedule property on a meagre rent of Rs.950/ - per month, which is even lesser than the municipal taxes being paid by the respondents/ landlords in respect of the petition schedule property. On the other hand, the revision petitioner/ tenant, who was examined as R.W.1, deposed that there is no agreement to
4
enhance the rent and the landlords never requested him to enhance the rents. The petition schedule property building is in dilapidated condition and only few shops are in habitable condition. The petition schedule property, in present condition, would not fetch rent more than Rs.1000/ - per month, as it is situated in a narrow and congested lane. There is no proper access to the petition schedule property. The respondents/ landlords themselves have agreed that the petition schedule property is not in habitable condition. Therefore the rent being paid by him is just and reasonable one.
8 . Admittedly, the petition schedule property is a heritage building aged over 100 years, where the former President of India His Excellency late Sri Zakir Hussain spent his childhood. The trial Court observed that a part of the building was demolished by the GHMC Authorities on the ground that it is in dilapidated condition. R.W.1/ tenant admitted that the market value of the commercial area is at Rs.50,000/ - per square yard by then and he simply pleaded ignorance that he does not know whether the present market value is more than Rs.50,000/ - per square yard as per Ex.P-3-Market Value Certificate, dated 23.03.2015. The first appellate Court held that the present market value of locality in which the petition schedule property is situated is more than Rs.1 lakh per square yard and that the revision petitioner/ tenant, in the cross examination, dated 15.7.2015, admitted that he paid an amount of Rs.25,000/ - at the time of induction as tenant in the year 1982 itself to the
5
vendors of the respondents/ landlords and that itself indicates the potentiality of the locality where the petition schedule property is situated as well as potential goodwill in the year 1982 itself. The first appellate Court further observed that in the cross examination of P.W.1/ landlord it was elicited and P.W.1 voluntarily offered to give Rs.15,000/ - per month to the revision petitioner/ tenant in case he vacates the petition schedule property within one month and the said offer itself indicates the importance, significance and locatiional advantage of the petition schedule property. The first appellate Court further observed that even R.W.1/ tenant, in his crossexamination, dated 27.07.2015, simply pleaded ignorance by stating that he does not remember that for the last time, the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs.950/ - in the year 1998 and till then there is no enhancement of r ent and it is also one of the essential factors to be taken into consideration while determining the fair rent and that the aforesaid categorical admissions clinchingly establishing the age of the building, locational advantage, prevailing market value of the land, amenities provided to the building and that it would fetch considerable rent as rightly quantified by the learned Rent Controller.
9 . A careful examination of the order under challenge reveals that the Court below did not commit any error nor there is gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. The conclusions reached by the Court
6
below are based on the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties. The questions raised in this Civil Revision Petition do not merit consideration in view of the cogent and convincing evidence led by the respondents/ landlords.
1 0 . It is apt to state that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to see that a Court or Tribunal subordinate to it functions “ within the bounds of their authority ” and to ensure that law is followed by such Court or Tribunal by exercising jurisdiction vested in them and not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from the above, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence, when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Courts or Tribunal subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
1 1 . In Gh u lam Hassan Baba Vs. Moh am m ad Naik oo & Or s., OW P No. 4 7 6 / 2 0 1 3 decided on 1 8 .0 3 .2 0 1 4 , the coordinate Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, observed in Para 10 & 11 as follows:
" 1 0 . Ju dicial pr on ou n cem en t s as t o t h e obj ect an d scope of t h e pow er of t h e High Cou r t u n der Ar t icle 2 2 7 of t h e Con st it u t ion w ou ld leave lit t le scope t o in t er fer e w it h t h e or der s of t h e su bor din at e cou r t s as a m at t er of r ou t in e. Th is pow er can n ot be t ak en as r igh t of an ot h er appeal t o t h e aggr iev ed par t y . Nor t h is pow er can be in v ok ed t o poin t ou t an er r or of law or fact in t h e or der or decision of a su bor din at e cou r t as h as been sou gh t by t h e pet it ion er in t h is case. Th is pow er can n ot be u sed t o m ak e ou t t h at t h e decision of t h e su bor din at e cou r t cou ld h av e been or m u st h ave been ot h er t h an w h at it w as.
7
1 1 . High Cou r t in ex er cise of it s pow er u n der Ar t icle 2 2 7 of t h e Con st it u t ion sh ou ld in t er fer e in or der on ly t o k eep t h e t r ibu n als an d cou r t s su bor din at e t o it , " w it h in t h e bou n ds of t h eir au t h or it y " an d t o en su r e t h at law is follow ed by su ch t r ibu n als an d cou r t s by ex er cisin g j u r isdict ion w h ich is vest ed in t h em an d by n ot declin in g t o ex er cise t h e j u r isdict ion w h ich is vest ed in t h em . Apar t fr om t h e above, High Cou r t can in t er fer e in ex er cise of it s pow er of su per in t en den ce w h en t h er e h as been a pat en t per ver sit y in t h e or der s of t h e t r ibu n als an d cou r t s su bor din at e t o it or w h er e t h er e h as been a gr oss an d m an ifest failu r e of j u st ice or t h e basic pr in ciples of n at u r al j u st ice h ave been flou t ed."
1 2 . In the instant case, neither there is patent perversity in the order under challenge nor the Court below travelled beyond its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The Court below discussed the material on record at length and ultimately negated the relief claimed by the revision petitioner/ tenant, assigning number of reasons. There is nothing to take a different view. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
1 3 . In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
23rd January, 2020 Bvv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment confirming the enhancement of fair rent from Rs.950 to Rs.10,920 per month is liable to be set aside?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ghulam Hassan Baba Vs. Mohammad Naikoo & Ors.Referred¶24
Ghulam Hassan Baba Vs. Mohammad Naikoo & Ors., OW P No. 476 / 2013
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner/Tenant
Respondents/Landlords
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
