Rent Control

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima,

I Addl. Rent Controller,
Hyderabad.
Dated this the 15th day of April, 2021.
R.C.No.199 of 2015
Between:
1. Smt. Zakiya Begum W/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem,
Aged 42 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.8-1-346/10/3,
Sabza Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.
2. Miss. Umm-e-Salma D/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem,

Aged 24 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.8-1-346/10/3,
3. Mohammed Abdul Aziz S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem,

Aged 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-1-346/10/3,
4. Abdul Rahman S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem,

Aged 17 years, Minor and hence represented by his mother
and guardian Smt. Zakiya Begum, Occ: Student,
R/o. H.No.8-1-346/10/3, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
And
1. Mr. Bahadur Ali Meghjaini, Aged 70 years,

Occ: Business, Owner/proprietor of 21st Century
Interiors and Furnitures Showroom,
having its business ac showroom No.2,
premises bearing No.5-9-60/B/GF, Mogul Court
building, Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad 500 001.
2. Twenty First Century Interiors &

Furnitures Showroom represented by
its owner/proprietor Mr. Bahadur Ali
Meghjaini, Showroom No.2, premises
bearing NO.5-9-60/B/GF, Mogul Court
Building, Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad 500 001.
.. Respondents
SALMA
Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA
DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR
CIVIL JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT
FATIMA HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.04.22 16:47:15 +0530
2
RC.No.199 of 2015
This petition is coming for fnal hearing before me in the

presence of Sri Mohd Imran Khan, Advocate for petitioners and of
Sri G. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for respondents and the matter having
stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This petition is fled by the petitioners under Section 4(1) T.S.
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 seeking fxation of
fair rent @ Rs.2,71,875/- per month in respect of premises admeasuring
2175 square feet, demarcated as basement No.1, situated in the cellar
floor of the building known as Moguls Court of Deccan Towers complex in
premises bearing NO.5-9-60, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad (hereinafter it is
referred as petition schedule property).
2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-
The petitioners fled the present petition by stating that
originally Mohammed Abdul Nayeem, husband of the petitioner No.1
herein and the father of the petiti12oners No.2 to 4 was the sole and
absolute owner of the entire petition schedule property, having purchased
the same under a registered sale deed dt.30.6.1982 and after the demise
of said Mohammed Abdul Nayeem on 12.12.2013, the entire petition
schedule property was devolved upon the petitioners herein by virtue of
petitioners being wife and children of said late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem.
3. The petitioners further submitted that late Mohammed Abdul
Nayeem leased out the petition schedule property to the respondent No.1
herein for the purpose of carrying on business of the respondent No.2 and
SALMA Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA


Date: 2021.04.22 16:47:32 +0530
3
RC.No.199 of 2015
that the rent payable by the respondents in fact had been a sum of
Rs.15000/- per month, but when the petitioners herein addressed a notice
dt.14.5.2015 to the respondents calling upon them to pay the rents at the
above said rate, the respondents falsely denied that the rent was as stated
above, but claimed that the rent to be Rs.3000/- per month and also made
several false allegations as per their reply notice dt.18.5.2015. The
petitioners further submitted the petitioners do not have any record
available with regard to proof that the quantum of rent @ Rs.15000/- per
month and therefore the petitioners herein were left with no other choice to
accept the total false and baseless contentions of the respondents that the
rent of the petition schedule property is @ Rs.3000/- per month.
4. The petitioners submitted that when they issued notice
dt.4.5.2015, the respondents replied through their counsel on 18.5.2015
and also fled the said reply with another reply dt.14.7.2015 calling upon
the petitioners herein to nominate a bank account, so as to enable them to
deposit the rent @ Rs.3000/- per month and the petitioners replied to the
above said notice on 28.7.2015. The petitioners further submitted that the
respondents committed willful default in payment of rents for the months
from January 2015 till July 2015 for a period of 7 months @ Rs.3000/- per
month amounting to Rs.21000/-. The petitioners fled RC.No.198/2015
against the respondents for eviction on the grounds of willful default,
personal requirement and U/s.10(C) of RC Act and the same is pending
before this court.
SALMA

Date: 2021.04.22 16:47:44 +0530
4
RC.No.199 of 2015
5. The petitioners further submitted that the petition schedule
property is located in the heart of the city and it is situated on the main
road i.e., Basheerbagh main road, as a width of about 150 feet. The
petition schedule property is surrounded by residential as well as
commercial complexes, commercial establishments, business centers and
as all the facilities like parking spaces, near to the railway station, bus stop,
post ofce, telegram ofce, petrol pumps etc., and the same is highly
residential as well as commercial locality and it is at a walkable distance
from several well known establishments of Hyderabad like secretariat, Lal
Bahadur stadium, Public garden and abids shopping area etc., and the cost
of the land as per square yard would be more than Rs.50,000/- per square
yard. The market value of the petition schedule property would be
approximately Rs.1,50,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,00,000/- be that as it may the
rentals being fetched in respect of the property immediately over and
above the petition schedule property would be a fair indicator of the rental
values.
6. The petitioners further submitted that the premises bearing
show room No.1, premises No.5-9-60 in the building known as Moguls
Court, situated at Deccan Towers complex, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad which
is located directly over and above the petition schedule property is fetching
a rent of Rs.2,22,525/- per month for an area of 2300 sft., and the said rent
was prevalent as on 30.9.2009 i.e., the date lease was entered into in
respect of said premises and the same continued for a period of 3 years
i.e., till September 2012 and thereafter an agreed upon increase @ 15%
resulted in the rent being payable @ Rs.2,55,904/- per month and the said
SALMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CITY
SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,
FATIMA st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.04.22 16:48:07 +0530
5
RC.No.199 of 2015
rent is to be further escalated to a sum of Rs.2,94,290/- per month from
September 2014 onwards, hence it is submitted that the prevalent rate of
rents in the locality where the petition schedule property is situated is
about 128 per square feet per month and if such an aspect were to be
directly considered the fair rent of the petition schedule property could
easily be fxed @ Rs.2,78,400/-(i.e.,2175 sft., x Rs.128/.- per sft.,) whereas
the petitioners are claiming fxation of fair rent @ Rs.2,71,875/- per month.
7. The petitioners further submitted that as per the notice
dt.28.7.2015 the respondents were called upon to pay the aforesaid fair
rent @ Rs.2,71,875/- per month and have also called upon the respondents
to vacate the petition schedule property as the same is required for their
own use, but the respondents never responded to the same, as such the
petitioners left with no other alternative than to seek eviction of the
respondents from the petition schedule property and in the meantime seek
fxation of fair rent in respect of petition schedule property. Hence this
petition.
8. On the other hand the respondents fied counter, denying
the petition averments by stating that the premises leased out to the
respondents is only 1950 square feet, but not 2175 square feet and the
respondents came to know about the death of Sri Mohammed Abdul
Nayeem in the month of February 2014 when the third petitioner along with
his maternal grandfather came for collection of rent. The respondents
submitted that admittedly the petition schedule property is in cellar floor
which is adjacent to cellar portion belonging to the respondents herein and
SALMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA,

ou=JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CID -
6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER CITY SMALL
FATIMA CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,

st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:48:42 +0530
6
RC.No.199 of 2015
it is taken only for the purpose of storing material (furniture) in the year
1983 and not for carrying on business and the monthly rent originally fxed
was only Rs.1550/- as per letter dt.22.10.1983 issued by late Mohammed
Abdul Nayeem and subsequently in the year 1985 the rent was enhanced
to Rs.3000/- per month and the respondents have been paying the rents
without default to the owner i.e., Mohammed Abdul Nayeem.
9. The respondents denied the rent payable is Rs.15000/- per
month as stated in the petition. The rents were being collected by the
owner either by way of bearer cheques in advance or the owner used to
send his agents for collection of cheques on his behalf towards rents,
therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they got issued notice on
4.5.2015 for payment of rent @ Rs.15000/- per month is without any base
and therefore the respondents were forced to send reply notice
dt.18.5.2015. In this regard, the respondents also requested the
petitioners through notice dt.14.7.2015 to furnish account number so as to
enable them to continue to deposit the rents, but the petitioners did not
furnish the account number, as such the frst respondent fled a petition
vide RC.NO.202/2015 U/s.8(5) of RC Act seeking direction for deposit of
rents of petition schedule property and the same is pending before this
court.
10. The respondents further submitted that allegation that the
petition schedule property is commercial and surrounded by commercial,
residential establishments with all facilities and located in the main road
and the said main road is 150 feet etc., and that the market value would

DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,CID - 6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER CITY SMALL CAUSES
FATIMA COURT HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

Date: 2021.04.22 16:48:55 +0530
7
RC.No.199 of 2015
approximately Rs.1,50,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,00,000/- and that it would be
fetch rent of Rs.2,71,875/-, all are irrelevant and not applicable to the
petition schedule property as the petition schedule property is a cellar
portion not having the facilities enumerated in the rental premises under
the lease deed dt.30.9.2009 and these allegations are made by comparing
with the premises on the ground floor and frst floor where jewellery and
other like businesses are conducted, therefore the said allegations and
contentions are not criteria for fxation of fair rent and the fair rent has to
be fxed as per Section 4 of Rent Control Act by taking into consideration so
many other similar and equal factors.
11. The respondents further submitted that the contention of the
petitioners that the rental value as per square per month is Rs.125/- to
Rs.150/- is far from truth and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the
same contention.
12. The respondents further submitted that the comparison of rent
prevailing should for the same and similar accommodation and in this case
the rent compared is with the premises lease out to a jewellery shop on the
ground/frst floor, but the cellar portion leased out to the respondents
herein for storing material and the rent also depends upon the use of the
premises whether it is in Basheerbagh, Abids or at any other places and the
petitioners herein are trying to mislead the court by comparing the rent
which are entirely opposite to the use and purpose of premises. The
respondents further submitted that as per the averments of the petitioners,
if the rent is Rs.15000/- per month and respondents committed default in


Date: 2021.04.22 16:49:12 +0530
8
RC.No.199 of 2015
payment of rent, the Rent Controller has no right or jurisdiction to entertain
the petition as the alleged rent amount is more than Rs.3500/- per month
and the petition is not maintainable, hence prays this court to dismiss the
petition with costs.
13. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner No.1 examined
herself as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 got marked. Further the petitioner No.3
examined as PW.2. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, the
respondent No.1 himself is examined as RW.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.14 got
marked.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
respondents counsel fled written arguments.
15. To consider the rival contentions of both the parties, the
following points that arose for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the fxation of fair rent in
respect of petition schedule property?
(2) To what relief?
16. The admitted facts in this case are

(I) There is no dispute with regard to jural relationship between the
petitioners and respondents as landlords and tenant in respect of
petition schedule property.
(2) There is no dispute with regard to identifcation of petition schedule

property.
(3) There is no dispute with regard to fling of RC.No.198/2015 by the

petitioners against the respondents.


st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:49:27 +0530
9
RC.No.199 of 2015
(4) There is not dispute with regard to fling of RC.No.202/2015 by the

respondents against the petitioners for the deposit of rents.
17. During the course of written arguments as well as in the
counter, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in Ex.P2
legal notice dt.4.5.2015 the petitioners herein demanded for the rent as
Rs.15,000/- per month and as the alleged amount is more than Rs.3500/-
per month, as such this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present
petition and barred by section 32 of the RC Act.
18. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners
argued that though they demanded the rent under Ex.P2 as Rs.15000/- per
month, but the respondents in their reply under Ex.P3 stated that the rent
of petition schedule property is Rs.3000/- per month only, as such the
petitioners herein admitted the rent of the petition schedule property as
Rs.3000/- per month only and the same is pleaded by them in the petition
as well as in the chief afdavit and the contention of the respondents is not
tenable.
19. Perused the contentions of both side, after perusal, this court
opines that the admitted facts need not be proved, as the petitioners
admitted that the monthly rent is Rs.3000/- as they have no documentary
evidence to prove that the rent of the petition schedule property is
Rs.15000/- per month, as such the rent of the petition schedule property is
Rs.3000/- per month only. Moreover, the respondents themselves stated
that they are paying the rent in respect of the petition schedule property @


st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:49:38 +0530
10
RC.No.199 of 2015
Rs.3000/- per month from 1985, as such they cannot breath hot and cold at
the same time by stating that as the petitioners alleges that the rent in
respect of the petition schedule property is Rs.15000/- per month, as such
this court does not have jurisdiction.
20. In view of the above discussion, this court found that the
contention of the respondents is not tenable and this court has jurisdiction.
P O I N T No.1:-
21. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondents herein
is paying the rent in respect of petition schedule property is @ Rs.3000/-
per month from 1985 onwards and the petition schedule property is located
in the heart of the city and it is situated on the main road i.e., Basheerbagh
main road as the width of about 150 feet and the petition schedule
property is surrounded by residential as well as commercial complexes,
commercial establishments, business centers and as all the facilities like
parking spaces, near to the railway station, bus stop, post ofce, telegram
ofce, petrol pumps etc., and the same is highly residential as well as
commercial locality and the cost of the land per square yard would be more
than Rs.50,000/- per square yard and the market value of the petition
schedule property is approximately is Rs.1,50,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,00,000/-
and the petition schedule property would easily fetch the rent of
Rs.2,71,875/- per month.


Date: 2021.04.22 16:49:48 +0530
11
RC.No.199 of 2015
22. On the other hand, the respondents denied that the petition
schedule property is only 1950 square feet, but not 2175 square feet and
further submitted that the petition schedule property is a cellar portion and
not having the facilities enumerated in the rental premises under the lease
deed dt.30.9.2009 and these allegations are made by comparing with the
premises on the ground floor and frst floor where jewellery and other like
businesses are conducted, therefore the said allegations and contentions
are not criteria for fxation of fair rent and the fair rent has to be fxed as
per Section 4 of Rent Control Act by taking into consideration so many
other similar and equal factors.
23. In support of the contention of the petitioners, the petitioner
No.1 herself is examined as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of the
petition in her chief examination afdavit and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
Further the petitioner No.3 is examined as PW.2.
24. Ex.P1 is the certifed copy of registered sale deed dt.30.6.1982.
Ex.P2 is the legal notice dt.4.5.2015. Ex.P3 is the reply dt.18.5.2015. Ex.P4
is the legal notice dt.14.7.2015. Ex.P5 is the reply notice dt.28.7.2015.
Ex.P6 is the rough sketch plan. Ex.P7 is the certifed copy of lease
agreement dt.30.9.2009.
25. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, the
respondent No.1 examined himself as RW.1 and reiterated the contents of
the counter in his chief examination afdavit and got marked Ex.R.1 to
Ex.R.14.


Date: 2021.04.22 16:50:03 +0530
12
RC.No.199 of 2015
26. Ex.R.1 is the certifed copy of no objection certifcate
dt.22.10.1983. Ex.R.2 is the certifed copy of letter dt.31.1.1985 issued by
the husband of the frst petitioner. Ex.R.3 is the certifed copy of letter
dt.7.2.1985 issued by the husband of frst petitioner. Ex.R.4 is the certifed
copy of receipt dt.31.7.1998. Ex.R.5 is the certifed copy of receipt
dt.29.1.1998. Ex.R.6 is the certifed copy of receipt dt.20.4.2007. Ex.R.7 is
the certifed copy of visiting card of RW.1. Ex.R.8 is the certifed copies of
visiting cards(2 in number) of the business of frst petitioner’s husband by
name M.A. Nayeem. Ex.R.9 is the certifed copy of eMo acknowledgments
(4 in number) dt.6.8.2015. Ex.R.10 is the certifed copies of returned postal
covers(4 in number). Ex.R.11 is the certifed copies of two postal receipts
and two returned covers. Ex.R.12 is the certifed copy of bank statement of
respondent No.2 of Bank of India, Hyderabad for the period from 1.1.2015
to 31.3.2015 and 1.4.2015 to 13.5.2015(2 pages). Ex.R.13 is the certifed
copy statement of account of respondent No.2 with Bank of India,
Hyderabad dt.24.11.2015. Ex.R.14 is the photographs (4 in number) along
with CD.
27. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioners argued that the petition schedule property admeasures 2175
square feet and to prove their contention, the learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on Ex.P1 which is the certifed copy of registered sale
deed in respect of petition schedule property.
Digitally signed by SALMA
SALMA
FATIMA
DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA,

st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:50:11 +0530
13
RC.No.199 of 2015
28. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents in
his written arguments submitted that the petition schedule property is only
1950 square feet.
29. Perused the contentions of both the learned counsel and on
perusal of Ex.P1 which is the certifed copy of registered sale deed in
respect of petition schedule property which clearly shows that the petition
schedule property admeasures 2175 square feet. On the other hand, the
respondents failed to fle any documentary evidence to show that the
petition schedule property admeasures 1950 square feet. Moreover, during
the course of his cross examination RW.1 admitted as follows:-
“It is rue that I am oniy the tenant in the entire premises. It

is true that document No.4939/1982 dt.30.6.1982 is the saie deed
of the said premises and the extent of the property is mentioned
under the said document as 2175 square feet. Witness adds that
as per measurements the same is 1950 square feet. I do not have
any measurements or sketch of the so caiied measurements.
Neither myseif nor my workers have ever measured the petition
scheduie property”.
30. Except the bald allegations, the respondents herein failed to
prove that the petition schedule property admeasures 1950 square feet by
fling any cogent evidence. Basing on Ex.P1 and oral admission of RW.1, it
is clear that the petition schedule property admeasures 2175 square feet.
31. To prove the contention of the petitioners, the petitioners got
marked Ex.P7 which is the certifed copy of lease agreement dt.30.9.2009
between the husband of the petitioner No.1 M.A. Nayeem and
Tribbhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri Pvt. Ltd., and as per the lease deed, in the


st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:50:19 +0530
14
RC.No.199 of 2015
year 2009 the rent in respect of petition schedule property was
Rs.2,22,525/-. Further during the course of cross examination of RW.1, the
learned counsel for the petitioners could elicit the following:-
“I have not gone through the document dt.30.9.2009 marked

as Ex.P7 in RC.No.199/2015. I am not aware whether I received
the copy of Ex.P7. It may be true that the Ex.P7 in RC.No.199/2015
is for a period of nine months. It may be true that the rent
payabie under Ex.P7 in RC.No.199/2015 are @ Rs.2,22,525/- per
month for frst three years, and Rs.2,55,904/- per month for the
next three years and Rs.2,94,290/- per month for iast three years.
It is true that the premises under Ex.P7 is above the petition
scheduie property and it may be true that oniy a six inch siab
separates the two premises. It is true that, on main road of
Basheer Bagh, next to petroi bunk, petition scheduie property is
situated. It is true, I have fied rough sketch pian showing the
area of the petition scheduie property in RC.202/2015. It is true
that, on the main road ieading from Abids to Tank bund, the
buiiding of petition scheduie property is situated. It is true that,
the petition scheduie property is situated under the jeweiiery shop
of Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri”.
32. On the other hand, the respondents got marked Ex.R.1 to
Ex.R.14. During the course of written arguments, the learned counsel for
the respondents submitted that the petitioners have not examined one of
the parties to Ex.P7 to prove the contents and its genuineness. The
learned counsel for the respondents further argued that as per Section 4(2)
(b) of RC Act in fxing the fair rent under this section prevailing rate of rent
in the locality for the same for similar accommodation in similar
circumstances has to be considered.
relied on a decision in Suresh Gir Vs. K. Ahadev reported in 1998(1)
ALD 25 wherein the Honourable AP court held in para No.48 & 49 as
follows:
SALMA

Date: 2021.04.22 16:50:41 +0530
15
RC.No.199 of 2015
“The Writ petition is aiiowed and we deciare sub-sections (2), (3) and (4)
of Section 4 of the Act as unconstitutionai, thereby afrming the judgment of
Rama Rao, J. in Ataur Rahman’s case (supra)
The Reference Case is answered by ciarifying mat sub-section (1) of

Section 4 aiways remained and continues to remain on the Statute book as a
vaiid provision and the Rent Controi Court has power to determine the fair rent
without regard to the criteria iaid in sub-sections(2) to (4) of Section 4 of the
Act”.
34. Perused the contentions of both the learned counsel and after
perusal of both the contentions and citation relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that clause (2)(3) and (4) of Section 4
of RC Act held unconstitutional by the Honourable High Court of AP., as
such the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that while
fxing the fair rent U/s.4 of Rc Act the court has to consider the section 4(2)
cannot be considered. Though the respondents denied that the petition
schedule property will fetch rent of Rs.2,71,875/- per month and it is a
cellar portion and he is using the same for storing material i.e., furniture,
but except bald allegations, RW.1 did not fle any documentary evidence to
prove his contention that the petition schedule property will not fetch
Rs.2,71,875/- per month.
35. Whereas, to prove the contention of the petitioners, the
petitioners got marked Ex.P7 rental agreement executed between the
husband of the petition No.1 and Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri Pvt. Ltd.
Though the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners
did not examine the party to the rental agreement under Ex.P7, but here
the husband of the petitioner No.1 is the party to Ex.P7, who expired and
the same fact is admitted by the respondents herein and now the
petitioners being the legal heirs of M.A. Nayeem, they are the parties to
SALMA
FATIMA
DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA,

st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:50:49 +0530
16
RC.No.199 of 2015
Ex.P7. Moreover, RW.1 in his cross examination admitted Ex.P7 and the
above portion of petition schedule property is fetching Rs.2,22,252/- per
month in the year 2009.
36. The learned counsel for the respondents in his written
arguments submitted that the property under Ex.P7 is located in the
ground floor and has vehicular approach, clear visibility, facing towards the
main road with proper marketing feasibility and whereas the petition
schedule property is a cellar portion and having no vehicular approach, no
visibility, no ventilation and same is only suitable for storing material and
do not have marketing feasibility.
argued that the husband of the petitioner No.1 let out the petition schedule
property to the respondents for carrying out super market in the petition
schedule property and relied on Ex.R.1 fled by the respondents herein and
further argued that the petition schedule property is just 6 inch below the
property under Ex.P7 and there cannot be much diference between the
petition schedule property and the property under Ex.P7.


ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CITY
SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD,
38. FATIMA
Perused the contentions of both the learned counsel and after
st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:51:08 +0530
perusal of Ex.R.1, which shows that RW.1 obtained the petition schedule
property to carry out super market, but he is using the same for storing the
furniture and even though the nature of property under Ex.P7 is diferent
from the petition schedule property and both cannot be compared with
each other, but they comes under same locality and RW.1 during the


st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:52:22 +0530
17
RC.No.199 of 2015
course of his cross examination admitted that from 1985 he is paying the
rent in respect of petition schedule property @ Rs.3000/- per month and he
further admitted that the property under Ex.P7 is above the petition
schedule property and from the last 36 years the respondents are paying
the same rent, whereas in the last 36 years the value of the property and
lot of development took place and even though the petition schedule
property cannot be compared with Ex.P7, but the rent paid by the
respondents in respect of petition schedule property is very meager.
39. This court relied on a decision in Rattan Arya Etc., Vs. State of
Tamii Nadu and another reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1444(1) the
Hon’ble Apex court held that
“Court is entitled to take judicial notice of the enormous

multifold increase of rents throughout the country, particularly
in urban areas”.
40. This court can take judicial notice in respect of location of
petition schedule property which is located in the main road. The
respondents herein fled photographs of petition schedule property under
Ex.R.14. After perusal of Ex.R.14, it shows that the petition schedule
property is situated on the main road. Therefore, by taking judicial notice,
this court comes to a conclusion that the petition schedule property is
situated in business area i.e., Basheerbagh main road, Hyderabad.
Admittedly, the rent in respect of petition schedule property is very
meager, therefore it has to be enhanced.


Date: 2021.04.22 16:52:39 +0530
18
RC.No.199 of 2015
41. Taking into consideration of the contentions of the petitioners
and in view of the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that
the petition schedule property is located in the main road of Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad, which is a commercial area and it would be reasonable and
desirable to fx the fair rent @ Rs.1,08,750/- i.e., 2175 x Rs. 50/- per square
feet. As while fxing the fair rent, under Section 4 of RC Act the court has
to take the judicial notice of the fact with regard to abnormal increase in
the rates in the locality and so the petition schedule property can easily
fetch Rs.1,08,750/- per month.
P O I N T No.3:-
42. In this matter, PW.1, PW.2 and RW.1 cross examined at length,
despite after going through the entire material which ever is relevant, the
court has considered it, accordingly point is decided. The other objections
raised are no way relevant to the present case on record. So from the
above discussion, the objections raised by the parties are answered
accordingly.
43. In view of the fndings in point No.1, the petitioners are entitled
for fxation of fair rent in respect of petition schedule property.
44. In the result, the petition is partly allowed without costs by
fxing the fair rent @ Rs.1,08,750/- (2175 x Rs.50/- per square feet) per
month from the date of petition i.e., 18.8.2015. The respondents are
directed to pay the fair rent @ Rs.1,08,750/- per month to the petitioners
from the date of petition and further directed to enhance the rent @ 5% per

FATIMA


st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:52:54 +0530
19
RC.No.199 of 2015
every year on the existing rate of rent in respect of petition schedule
property. The arrears of rent shall be paid to the petitioners by the
respondents within six months from the date of this order.
Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 15th day of April, 2021.
SALMA

Date: 2021.04.22 16:53:04 +0530
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for
Petitioners Respondents:
PW.1: Zakiya Begum RW.1: Bahadur Ali Meghajaini
PW.2: Mohammed Abdul Aziz
Documents marked for

Petitioners:-
Ex.P1: Certifed copy of registered sale deed dt.30.6.1982.

Ex.P2: Legal notice dt.4.5.2015.
Ex.P3: Reply dt.18.5.2015.
Ex.P4: Legal notice dt.14.7.2015.
Ex.P5: Reply notice dt.28.7.2015.
Ex.P6: Rough sketch plan.
Ex.P7: Certifed copy of lease agreement dt.30.9.2009.
Respondents:
Ex.R.1: Certifed copy of no objection certifcate dt.22.10.1983.
Ex.R.2: Certifed copy of letter dt.31.1.1985 issued by the husband of the

frst petitioner.
Ex.R.3: Certifed copy of letter dt.7.2.1985 issued by the husband of frst

petitioner.
Ex.R.4: Certifed copy of receipt dt.31.7.1998.

FATIMA


st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:53:15 +0530
20
RC.No.199 of 2015
Ex.R.7: Certifed copy of visiting card of RW.1.
Ex.R.8: Certifed copies of visiting cards(2 in number) of the business of

frst petitioner’s husband by name M.A. Nayeem.
Ex.R.9: Certifed copy of eMo acknowledgments (4 in number) dt.6.8.2015.
Ex.R.10: Certifed copies of returned postal covers(4 in number).
Ex.R.11: Certifed copies of two postal receipts and two returned covers.
Ex.R.12: Certifed copy of bank statement of respondent No.1 of Bank of

India, Hyderabad for the period from 1.1.2015 to 31.3.2015 and 1.4.2015 to
13.5.2015(2 pages).
Ex.R.13: Certifed copy statement of account of respondent No.1 with Bank

of India, Hyderabad dt.24.11.2015.
Ex.R.14: Photographs along with CD(4 in number). Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA
DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CID -
SALMA FATIMA 6751172, o=I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CITY

SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN
Date: 2021.04.22 16:53:25 +0530
HYDERABAD.
SCHEUDLE OF THE PROPERTY
All that premises admeasuring 2175 square feet, demarcated

as Basement No.I, situated in the Cellar floor of the building known as
“Moguls Court” of Deccan Towers Complex in premises bearing NO.5-9-60,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and bounded as follows:-
On the North: By Neighbors Commercial Space No.2,

5-9-60, Basheer Bagh.
On the South: By Drive Way (Parking)
On the East: By Road
On the West: By Drive Way (Parking)

Date: 2021.04.22 16:53:34 +0530
HYDERABAD.
21
RC.No.199 of 2015

Rent Control

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rent Control

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. Salma Fatima,

Dated this the 15th day of April, 2021.

2. Miss. Umm-e-Salma D/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem,

3. Mohammed Abdul Aziz S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem,

4. Abdul Rahman S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem,

1. Mr. Bahadur Ali Meghjaini, Aged 70 years,

2. Twenty First Century Interiors &

FATIMA HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

This petition is coming for fnal hearing before me in the

This petition is fled by the petitioners under Section 4(1) T.S.

fair rent @ Rs.2,71,875/- per month in respect of premises admeasuring

2175 square feet, demarcated as basement No.1, situated in the cellar

floor of the building known as Moguls Court of Deccan Towers complex in

premises bearing NO.5-9-60, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad (hereinafter it is

referred as petition schedule property).

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioners fled the present petition by stating that

originally Mohammed Abdul Nayeem, husband of the petitioner No.1

absolute owner of the entire petition schedule property, having purchased

of said Mohammed Abdul Nayeem on 12.12.2013, the entire petition

schedule property was devolved upon the petitioners herein by virtue of

3. The petitioners further submitted that late Mohammed Abdul

SALMA Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA

FATIMA HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

several false allegations as per their reply notice dt.18.5.2015. The

petitioners further submitted the petitioners do not have any record

rent of the petition schedule property is @ Rs.3000/- per month.

4. The petitioners submitted that when they issued notice

dt.4.5.2015, the respondents replied through their counsel on 18.5.2015

the petitioners herein to nominate a bank account, so as to enable them to

respondents committed willful default in payment of rents for the months

month amounting to Rs.21000/-. The petitioners fled RC.No.198/2015

against the respondents for eviction on the grounds of willful default,

personal requirement and U/s.10(C) of RC Act and the same is pending

before this court.

FATIMA HYDERABAD, st=Telangana, c=IN

5. The petitioners further submitted that the petition schedule

petition schedule property is surrounded by residential as well as

commercial complexes, commercial establishments, business centers and

residential as well as commercial locality and it is at a walkable distance

from several well known establishments of Hyderabad like secretariat, Lal

yard. The market value of the petition schedule property would be

approximately Rs.1,50,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,00,000/- be that as it may the

rentals being fetched in respect of the property immediately over and

6. The petitioners further submitted that the premises bearing

show room No.1, premises No.5-9-60 in the building known as Moguls

Court, situated at Deccan Towers complex, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad which

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA

SALMA DN: cn=SALMA FATIMA, ou=JUNIOR

FATIMA st=Telangana, c=IN

rent is to be further escalated to a sum of Rs.2,94,290/- per month from

September 2014 onwards, hence it is submitted that the prevalent rate of

rents in the locality where the petition schedule property is situated is

easily be fxed @ Rs.2,78,400/-(i.e.,2175 sft., x Rs.128/.- per sft.,) whereas

7. The petitioners further submitted that as per the notice

petitioners left with no other alternative than to seek eviction of the

fxation of fair rent in respect of petition schedule property. Hence this

8. On the other hand the respondents fied counter, denying

respondents came to know about the death of Sri Mohammed Abdul

his maternal grandfather came for collection of rent. The respondents

submitted that admittedly the petition schedule property is in cellar floor

which is adjacent to cellar portion belonging to the respondents herein and

Digitally signed by SALMA FATIMA