C Narayana Rao, Secunderabad 1 Other vs R Ajay Kumar

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 KUMAR 2015 (3) ALT 300 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 reported in SYED ZAMIL ABBAS V/s. YAMIN 2004 (4) SCC 871 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed in the light of this final order.