Dismissed¶144

Shri Subha Chari (Died Per Lrs) and 3 Others v. Shri G.Rajendranath Goud (Died)

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025CRP/4854/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair rent fixation; Section 4 A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960; judicial notice of locality and commercial user (mulgi/goldsmith workshop), Chikkadapally, Hyderabad; enhancement from Rs.250 to Rs.2,000 per month (Rs.5 per sq.ft.) with 5% annual increment; guidelines of Mohd. Ahmed v. Atma Ram Chauhan [2011] 7 SCC 755; Ratan Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1986 SC 1444; tenant's civil revision dismissed; appellate judgment affirmed.

What did the court decide?

None. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; the appellate court's judgment fixing fair rent at Rs.2,000/- per month was affirmed; pending miscellaneous applications were closed. ¶144

Shri Subha Chari (Died Per Lrs) and 3 Others Vs Shri G.Rajendranath Goud (Died) — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶144

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate court's fixation of fair rent at Rs.5/- per square foot (Rs.2,000/- per month) in R.A.No.220 of 2011, resting on judicial notice rather than corroborative evidence of prevailing rents, was legally sustainable or arbitrary and liable to interference in revision. +1 more

¶65

Court's answer

The appellate court's enhancement of rent, based on a logical assessment of the subject property's location and the admitted use of the front portion as a mulgi (shop), was rational and legally justified.

¶117

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 4 of the Act, the Rent Controller must have regard to (a) prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation, (b) rental value entered in property tax assessment records, and (c) any premium paid, so that the rent fixed is just, reasonable and reflective of actual market conditions.

¶112

Key takeaways

Where the previously fixed rental value dates back approximately 20 years, the Rent Controller must make a reliable and reasonable estimate, taking into account the tenant's liabilities (maintenance, property tax, water tax, electricity charges), and both parties are entitled to lead evidence of prevailing rental values.ratio¶137
The appellate court acted within its jurisdiction and exercised its discretion judiciously; the revision petitioners failed to show material irregularity, impropriety or legal perversity, so the impugned judgment warranted no interference and was affirmed.ratio¶143

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (N. Tukaramji, J., 12.02.2025) — Civil Revision Petition No. 4854 of 2013 — Fair rent fixation — Section 4, Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Tenants challenged the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court's judgment raising rent from Rs.250/- to Rs.2,000/- per month (Rs.5/- per sq.ft.) with 5% annual increment, contending it rested on conjecture absent proof of prevailing rents. Held: Section 4 obliges the Controller to have regard to prevailing local rents, property-tax rental values and premiums paid; applying the guidelines in Mohd. Ahmed v. Atma Ram Chauhan [2011] 7 Supreme Court Cases 755 and endorsing the judicial-notice principle in Ratan Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1986 SC 1444, the appellate court's assessment of location and admitted commercial use (mulgi) was rational; no material irregularity or perversity shown. Revision dismissed, impugned judgment affirmed, no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

t32171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDTJREABIfE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIV1'""'''

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CIVIL R EVISION PETITION NO: 4854 0 F 2013

¶7

Petition under section 22 of A..p Building (Lease/RenuEviction) control Act 1960 aggrieved bv the orrJer passed ii', n n.-r.r"i)o zt zolr on the fire of the Addr. Chief Judge, city Smal causes court, Hy;;;;;";;;ted 23 09.20.13 in pursuance i%ji:r:d:,;rrff;?1i,^{tne p,.i-n"nt''CJnliil,.,"irou,.,bad} in R C No rsJ or

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shri Subha Chari (Died per Lhs)

¶10

Smt. Reddamma (died per LRs 3 & 4), W/o Subha Chari (died per LRs)

¶11

'^{3;1P[ffJ:,,9,nfi7;"Pj3,?Ybhachary, occ Gordsm*hRio H No r-8} -460/13,

¶12

¶13

3f,ii[l,il!:,,9,nfi7;"1i3,?'bha^{chary'occ Gordsmith,R/o} H No l-B 460t13,

¶14

AryD

¶15

"'PETIrIoNERS/RESPONDENTS/RESPoNDENTS

¶16

i G Jasa n nath G o ud, occ

¶17

' SlilBS?Rl"o !1Hl[is:Bl7*t,?[:,ji,Iil?fl

¶18

¶19

1. Swarnalatha, WO ,i19,.9, Fajendranath Goud. Occ Housewife, R/O. H.No. 1 - B - 497t3. Chikkadapaily, nvcieiaOuJl'

¶20

srinath Goud, s/o. rate G Rajendranath Goud, occ Business, R/o H.No. 1 _ 3; fli%?TlfSiffll J1v,#;r,i.i'?Hi,'fii;;;O_No^{2 And} 3_are brousht oaro'erzirza"rn^'r,r";:ii2%i?j""edRespondent No'1 as pei c.b]iit^"'""'"'

¶21

-5.1I,;#Uf 4. P. Renuka, W/o. Balal

¶22

?f fl iiiiSgX,e&lft%",'"fi.tia?,$.,t",::.y'..b:l%o

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

,..'l.A.NO,^{1 OF 2O13}

¶25

petition under section 151^{cpc praying.thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{titeO in suppll} "f^{tnl p"titi;n,in""ttigl'Court may be pleased to stay} all further^{proceedingsin" p'""u"n"tto the orders nassed in R A'No 220 of 2o11} Citi s"lL^{c'Lses court' Hvderabad'dated} on the^{rile or the Addl 3'#i:;;;} 23.09.2013^{asainst th";#;;;'";J.6vtrre.err Rent Controller'Hvderabadin} R.C.No.135^{or 2011, d;i"J';i&:ott'penolngdisposal of the Civil Revision} Petition

¶26

l.A. NO:^{1oF 2014(cRPMP.NO:2149OF2014)}

¶27

Between:

¶28

G.Rajendranath^{Goud, S/o G JagannathGoud' Fl/o Chikkadapally' Hyderabad'}

¶29

.....PETITIONER/^RESPONDENT

¶30

AND

¶31

Shri^{Subha Chari (DiedPer LRs)}

¶32

Smt. Reddamma^{(died Per LRs 3 & 4)}

¶33

Sri. Prabhakara^{Chary, S/o deceased respondents1 and 2}

¶34

Sri Balakrishna^{Chary, S/o deceased respondents1 and2}

¶35

(Both Fi/o H.No.1-8-497/3,^{Chikkadapally' Hyderabad)}

¶36

...RESPONDENTS/^PETITIONERS

¶37

Petition under^{Section151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} p"t='rt"i'.!h^e.High^{Courtmay be pleased ro} the affidavit^{filed in supp#} "itn" in cRp.rrlp.ruo.6649^{of 2013 in} vacate the^{interim orders} "?.irv'i"t.iJist11t2O13 CRP.No.4854/13.

¶38

Counsel^{for the Petitioner(s):SRt'R A ACHUTHANAND}

¶39

counselfortheRespondents:MVBSNANUDEEP(Norepresentation)(Not Present)

¶40

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶41

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶43

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4854 0 F 2013

¶44

ORDER

¶45

This Civil Revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioners/respondents aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013 in R.A.No.22O of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

¶46

I have heard Mohd. lsmail Ashfaq, learned counsel, representing Mr.R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and none appeared for the respondents.

¶47

The relevant facts briefly stated, are that, respondent No..l/the landlord initiated proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, by filing a petition bearing R.c. No. 135 of 2009. The petition was directed against revision petitioner No.1/respondent No.1 (the tenant), seeking fixation of fair rent at Rs.3,500/_ per month, exclusive of electricity, water, and municipal taxes, effective from 0'l .01.2009. The subject premises are a property located at Municipal No.1-8-460/13, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, admeasuring approximately 400 square feet.

¶48

\7R1'

¶49

¶50

C.LP.No.18it^{o[20] )}

¶51

lt has^{been pleaded that' the tenant' revision petitioner No'1'} occupied^{thepremises' which consists of atwo-room} mulgilconlfiretcial^{shop with a verandah 'under an oraltenancy} agreement^{operating on a month-to-month basisThe monthlyrent} had remained^{fixed at Rs'250/- for over two decades' exclusive of} water and^{electricity charges' The landlordcontendedthat the rent} was^{disproportionatelylow' especially in light of the fact that he was} receiving^{Rs.2'500/- per monthfrom a neighboring mulgi (Municipal} No.1-8-460/12),^{whichmeasuredonly about 100 square feet' Upon} the tenant's^{refusal to accept the proposedincrease in rent'the} landlord^{initiated proceedings for fair rent fixation'}

¶52

ln support^{of his claim' the landlord testified as PW-1 and} produced^{several exhibits: Ex Pl (Legal Notice)'Ex'P2(Postal} Acknowledgment),^{Ex'P3 (Tenant'sReply to Legal Notice)'and} Exs.P4^{to P6 (Counterfoil Receipts)'}

¶53

Conversely,^{the tenant appeared as RW-1 and produced the} following^{documents rn his defence: Ex Rl (Petitionin R'C No 676} of 1989),^{ExR2(Order in RC No 676 of 1989)' ExR3 (Petitionin} RC. No^{416 of 2000)'ExR4 (Counter in RC No 416 of 2000)'} Ex.R5^{(Deposition of RW-'l in R C No 416 of 2000)' Ex R6 (Order} inR.C.No.416of2000),Ex.R7(AppealorderinR.A.No6T*of

¶54

¶55

t-l-R,rr

¶56

(..K1'.N0.485J o/ 201 )

¶57

: I I

¶58

2003), Ex.R8 (Notice), and Exs.R9 to R25 (photographs with accompanying cD)

¶59

Upon reviewing the evidence, the principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dismissed the randrord's petition. The controrer observed that the landlord had failed to examine the tenant of the adjoining murgi or to produce documentary evidence indicating that the subject premises was used for commercial purposes, such as selling pooja items Additionalry, there was no evidence of parking availabirity' nor was there substantiation that buses operated on the road in front of the premises. The Controller concluded that the landlord's assertions regarding location and rental value were self-serving and unsupported by corroborative material.

¶60

Aggrieved by this dismissal, the landlord filed an appeal, R.A. No. 220 of 2011. The appellate Court, invoking judicial notice of the location and the usage of the front portion of the premises as a mulgi, revised the fair rent to Rs.5/- per square foot amounting to Rs.2,000/- per month, effective from the date of the original petition, with a provision for an annual increment of 5%.

¶61

Dissatisfied with the appellate Court,s order, the tenants have filed the present revision petition.

¶62

¶63

N'ilt , (.kP.No.48il o/ 201 )

¶64

¶65

Learned^{counselfor the revision petitioners contendedthat' in} determining^{the fair rent, the appellate Court erred by failing to} adhere to^{the settled legalprinciplesthat rent fixationmust be iust} and reasonable^{This requires consideration of several key factors'} including the^{property's location'the nature and qualitYof} construction,^{its accessibility fromthe main road' and the availability} ofbasicamenities.Heemphasizedthattheageofthebuildingadmittedly^{around45 years-wasnot properly taken into account'} Furthermore,^{while the landlord had allegedthat he wasreceivinga} higher rent^{from an adjoining property'he did not examineany} tenants^{or provide corroborating evidenceto substantiatethis clalm'} lntheabsenceofsuchevidence,andinlightoftheoraladmission regarding^{the building'sage and suboptimallocation (i'e''not} situated^{on a main road), the fixationof fair rent at Rs 2'000/-per} month^{was both arbitrary and legally unsustainable lt was argued} that the^{Rent Controller had rightly dismissedthe landlord'spetition} based^{on the insufficiencyof evidence'and the appellate Court had} wrongly^{enhanced the rent based on conjecture rather than on} established Parameters'

¶66

LearnedcounselfurtherreliedonthejudgmentoftheHon,ble Supreme Court^{in Mohd Ahmed& Another v Atma Ram Chauhan&}

¶67

¶68

N'TR,/ ().R.P.N0.4851 of 201 )

¶69

othersl ' wherein it was herd that rent must be determined based on factors such as location, type of construction, proximity to main roads' avairabirity of parking facilities, and other such considerations. ln the present case, the subject premises is located in a narrow by_ lane and lacks parking amenities, and the building is approximately 45 years old That apart submitted that, during the pendency of the revision proceedings, respondent No. 't (the original randrord) passed away. Upon his demise, the subject property devolved upon his wife, who subsequenfly sold it to a third party. That third party, in turn' sord the property to revision petitioner No.2, the wife of revision petitioner No 1 (the originar tenant). presenry, revision petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are in occupation of the said premises.

¶70

These facts, coupled with the absence of cogent evidence from the landlord regarding prevairing market rents, justified the Rent Controller,s initial rejection of the petition. .The enhancement by the appellate court, based purely on surmise, was therefore unjustified, and intervention was sought accordingly.

¶71

ln contrast, the respondenllandlord (now represented through successors) contended on appeal that the tenant had admittedly bqen. in uninterrupted possession of the premises for the past 45

¶72

I 1201t; 7 Supreme Court Cases 755

¶73

¶74

¶75

( .kl'.|:0.48i'l aI20l )

¶76

years, during^{which periodthe rent had never been revisedlt was} asserted^{that the property is centrally locatedwithclearaccess to a} main road^{and that the tenant was operating a goldsmith,Sworkshop} from the^{premises.On this basis'the landlord argued that he was} well within^{his rights to seek enhancementof rent after such an} extended^{duration. Moreover,the appellateCourt' taking judicial} notice of^{the premises' locationand usage, justifiably revised the rent} in a moderate^{and reasonable manner' lt was also submitted that'} according^{to the legal authority cited by the petitioners themselves'a} landlord^{is entitled to a 10% rent increase everythree years ln this} context,^{the rent as fixed by the appellateCourt was' in fact' far} below the^{rate permitted under such norms Hence' it was argued} that the^{objections raised by the revisron petitionerswere untenable} and devoid^{of merit,and accordingly,the revision petitionwas liable} to be dismissed.

¶77

¶78

11 I have^{consideredthe submissionsof learned counseland} perused the^{materials on record'}

¶79

12 The fact^{that respondentNo'1 (the landlord) was the owner of} 400 square^{feet and bearing} the subject ProPertY^measurlng at ChikkadaPallY,^HYderab4{,* Municipal^{No.1-8-460/13,located} adjacent^{to the well-known Sri Venkateswara SwamyTempleis not}

¶80

¶81

AI'rR,/ (..KP.No.48it of 20/ )

¶82

in dispute. Likewise, it is undisputed that revision petitioner No.1 has been a tenant in the said premises for approximately 45 years, initiarry paying rent at the rate of Rs.200i- per month, which was rater increased to Rs.250/- per month from the year 19g9. rt is further admitted that the tenant is operating a goldsmith,s workshop from the premises.

¶83

'13. Respondent No. 1, who examined himself as pW_1, deposed that in the year 200g, he issued a legal notice proposing an enhanced rent of Rs.1 ,650/_ per month, exclusive of water and electricity charges as well as municipal taxes. He emphasized that the subject premises is located adjacent to the popular Venkateswara Swamy Temple and that the tenant is engaged in a profitable goldsmith business, thereby generating substantial income from the premises. The landlord further asserted that he owns the adjoining property as well, for which he is currenfly receiving a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/_, exclusive of utility charges.

¶84

14 However, during cross_examination, it was brought to light that the landlord had not submitted any documentary evidence substantiating the claim that the prevailing rent in the locality, including for the adjoining premises, was Rs.2,500/_ per month or m:re On the other hand, the tenant, who appeared as RBf,i,

¶85

NTki (..1.1,.X,t.1E 51 of 201 )

¶86

¶87

reiterated in^{his testimony that the building situated on the subject} premises is approximately^{70 yearsold He contended that the road} in front of^{the premises leads to a dead-end'there is no provision for} parking, and the^{area is predominantlyresidential in nature'thereby} rendering^{it unsuitablefor commercialestablishmentsThe tenant} further stated^{that he has been maintaining the premisesand} attending^{to all necessary repairs over the years He also pointed out} that the^{municipal authorities have assessed the property tax at a} nominalamountofRs.600/-perannum'reflectingitslimited commercial^viabilitY.

¶88

ln light^{of these factors, the tenant contendedthat the} proposed enhancement^{of rent to Rs 2'500i-per month was} excessive^{and unreasonable. He categorically deniedthe landlord's} assertion^{that the adjacentpropertywas yieldingRs 3'000/-per} month in^rent.

¶89

l6.Section4oftheAndhraPradeshBuildings(Lease,Rentand Eviction)^{Control Act, 1960, governs the determinationof fair rent'} The relevant^{statutory provisionis extractedas follows'}

¶90

Determination^{of fair rent} -^{(1) TheControllershall'on} application^{by the tenantor landlordof a building' fix the fairrent for} such building^{after holding such enquiryas the Controller thinksfit'}

¶91

¶92

N RJ C.&P_N0.4851 r{ 2O1 )

¶93

(2) ln fixing the fair rent under this Section, the Controller shall have due regard:

¶94

(a) to the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation Jn, simltar circumstances during the il;ir;;;;;. piior to tre 5th April, 1944;

¶95

(b) to the rental ,"lru .r:. entered in the property tax assessment bool< of the. concerned ioJai-autnority retating to the period mentioneJrn ciJuslill;.

¶96

¶97

other tike sum in addition t,i r.""i "rt5r"it"

¶98

(3) In fixing the fair rent of residential buildings, the Controller may allow:

¶99

(D if the rate of rent or rental value referred to in sub_section (2) does not "r"."JGn,"y,_i,r. ,rp""" per mensem, an increase not exceedirig 12 y, pet cent, on such rate or rental ,alu.l^.----...,

¶100

(iD if the rate of ru pees pe r, :+."t, ;JJi ":X,":,"J""""j; H;?y#: cent, on such rate per mensem. an or increase rental valuel not "r"e"Org.^----..., 1g lt per

¶101

(iii) if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds fifty rupees per mensem, an rncrease not erce"Oing..gi ,r, i; cent, on such rate or rental ,alue^----.,.,.

¶102

provided that in the case of a residential buitdins which has been "on"iru-"]"j'rfr";:";ff, 1944, the percentage of in.r"r"" Jn"r]f ioi-exceeo Sz % . 56 % and 75 respectivety

¶103

(4) ln fixing the fair rent of non_residential buildings, the

¶104

Controller may allow:

¶105

(i) if the rate of |.:nl_:|. rentat. vatue referred to in sub_ ]fi"ll"J":'l"t?::^{i:.t-:I"-""dlttv i'p-"J"i"..'" .n,",,} rate or rental ,rL!l"""o'nn^{56 % per cent'on such}

¶106

\r\

¶107

10 (..1.P.\n.18;1 ol )01 )

¶108

if the^{rateof rentor rental valueexceeds fifty rupees}

¶109

(ii) per men;;'^{;;increase not exceeding 75 percent'} on such^{rate or rental value:}

¶110

Provided^{that in the case of a non-residential} ouiroins JniJn""n;;;;";^{constructed,after5'hApril'} fS+a tne^{peicentage of increaseshall not exceed 75} and 150^{resPectively'}

¶111

ln the case^{a buildingfor which the fair rent has been fixed} (5) before the^{commencement of this Act' the Controller shallon the} application^{of the landlord'allowsuch increasein the fair rent as in} the opinion^{of the Controller'the landlordis entitledto underthis} Section.

¶112

A^{plain reading of Section4 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings} (Lease, Rent^{and Eviction) ControlAct' 1960' makes it evident that} the Rent^{Controlleris mandatedto consider certain key factors while} determining^{fair rent. These include:(a) the prevailing ratesof rent in} the locality^{for similar accommodations;(b) the rental valueentered} in the^{property tax assessment records maintained by the local} authority;^{and (c) any premium paid by the tenant in addition to the} rent. These^{criteriacollectivelyensure that the rent fixed is just'} reasonable,^{and reflective of actual market conditions.}

¶113

ln^{the presentcase, although the landlord assertedthat the} adjoining^{property is fetching a monthly rent of Rs 3'000/-'he failed} to produce^{any documentary evidenceto substantiatethis claim '} Nevertheless,^{the appellateCourt relied upon the iudgmenlofthe} Hon'ble^{Supreme Court in Ratan Arya v stafeof Tamil Nadu(AlR}

¶114

¶115

^7&/ C.RP.No.t85t of 2013

¶116

1986 SC 1444), wherein it was held that the Rent Controller is enti'ed to take judiciar notice of the substantiar and manifold increase in rental values in urban areas over time.

¶117

ln line with this legal position, the appellate Court,s reasoning in enhancing the rent was based on a logical assessment of the subject property's rocation and the admitted use of the front portion of the premises as a mulgi(shop). Thus, the Court,s approach in fixing the fair rent is found to be both rational and legally justified.

¶118

20 Furthermore, rn the case cited by the revision petitioners themselves- Mohd. Ahmed & Another v. Atma Ram Chauhan & Ofhers-the Hon,ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 21 of the judgment, laid down comprehensive guidelines for determining reasonable rent. The Court emphasized the landlord,s entiflement to a fair return on the re nted property and enumerated principles aimed at minimizing lahdlord -tenant litigation. The relevant portion reads as follows:

¶119

"21. Accord to our considered view majority of these cases are fired becau the land,ords do not get reasonable rent akin to market ,"nt, tr. ground or the other litisation is initiated so before r:::^" ":: omega' we deem it our dllly s66 * obrigation ,o ,,, "or."'ng ) guidelines and norms for such type of

--'.j

\ 1t..

t-.tr-P.|', o.1E^{i1 oi ){)l )}

¶124

litigation,^{so as to minimlse landlord{enant litigation at all levels} These are^{as follows:-}

¶125

¶126

(i) The tenant^{must enhance the rent accordingto the terms of the} agreement^{or at least by ten percent' after everythree yearsand} enhancedrentshouldthenbemadepayabletothelandlord'lfthe rentistoolow(incomparisontomarketrent)'havingbeenfixed almost^{20 to 25 years back then the present market rate shouldbe} worked^{out either on the basis of valuation reportor reliable} estimates^{of building rentals in the surrounding areas' let out on} rent recently

¶127

(ii) Apart from^{the rental, propertytax' water tax' ma'ntenance} charges^{electricity charges for the actualconsumptionof the} tenantedpremisesandforcommonareaShallbepayablebythe tenant only^{so that the landlordgets the actual rent out of which} nothing would^{be deductible ln case there is enhancementin} property tax,^{water tax or maintenancecharges' electricity charges} then the same^{shall alsobe borne by the tenant only'}

¶128

(iii) The usual maintenance^{of the premises' except ma'ior repatrs} would be carried^{out by the tenant only and the same would not be} reimbursable^{bY the landlord'}

¶129

(iv) But if any^{majorrepairs are requiredto be carried out then in} that case^{only after obtaining permissionfromthe landlordin} writing, the^{same shall be carried out and modalities with regard to} adjustment^{of the amount spent thereon' would have to be worked} out between^the Parties.

¶130

(v) lf the^{presentand prevalent marketrent assessed and fixed} between the^{parties is paid by the tenant then landlord shall not be} entitled to bring^{any action for his eviction against such a tenantat}

¶131

¶132

NII&/

¶133

C.R-P.|rlo.1Bit of 20t )

¶134

least for a period of 5 years_ Thus for a period of 5 years the tenant shal enjoy immunity from being evicted from the premrses.

¶135

(vi) The parties shall be at liberty to get the rental fixed by the official varuer or by any other agency, having expertise in the matter,

¶136

(vii) The rent so fixed should be just, proper and aclequate, keeping in mind the location, type of construction, accessibility to the main road, parking space facilities available therein etc, Care ought to be taken that it does not end up being a bonanza for the landlord."

¶137

It is therefore evident , that, in the determination of fair rent, particularly when the previously fixed rental value dates back approximately 20 years, the Rent Controller is expected to make a reliable and reasonabre estimate. This determination must arso take into account the tenant,s liabilities, including expenses incurred for maintenance, property tax, water tax, and electricity charges. Additiona'y' both parties are enti,ed to present evidence rerating to the prevailing rental values in the locality.

¶138

ln the present case, based on the evidentiary materials placed on record, the appellate Court concluded that a rent of Rs.5/_ per square foot constituted a reasonable valuation for the subject premises. The revision petitioners, apart from raising technical objections, failed to demonstrate any material irregularity,

¶139

._ - .,1

¶140

¶141

L.R-1).\a.^/.9-;J 'rr^{14l j}

¶142

impropriety,^{or legal perversity in the impugned appellate judgment} regarding^{the fixationof fair rent'}

¶143

23.^{ln viewof the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion} that the^{appellate Court acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and} exercised^{its discretionjudiciously in determiningthe enhanced rent.} There^{being no tenable groundsto interfere with the findings'the} warrants no^{interference and is} judgment under^challenge accordinglY^affirmed'

¶144

No order 24 Resultantly,^{the Civil Revision Petitionis dismissed}

¶145

as to costs

¶146

Pending^{miscellaneous applications'if any,shall standclosed}

¶147

SD/.M.NAGAMANI S TAN T^REGISTRAR

¶148

//TRUE^COPY//

¶149

SECTION^OFFICER