TIRUMALA ESTATES Vs. S. VIJAYASHREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by M/s.Tirumala Estates represented by its Managing Partner Mr.T.Madan Mohan against S.Vijayashree and S.Sai Geeta, represented by her power of Attorney S.Jayalakshmi, W/o. Late N.S.Sundra Murthy, against the judgment dtd. 22/3/2021 passed in R.C.A.No.118 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby the order dtd. 24/7/2019 passed in R.C.No.71 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for considering the issue of fixing fair rent in accordance with law.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as landladies and tenant. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondents herein are the landladies.

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant would contend that the landladies herein have jointly instituted fixation of fair rent application in R.C.No.71 of 2015 from Rs.1,800.00 to Rs.27,120.00 with an escalation of 20% for every two years. The said application is filed in respect of Premises No.34-B, First Floor, Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. The tenant would further contend that there is no jural relationship between the parties and they are residing Premises No.35, First Floor, Raghavaratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. The trial Court dismissed the application by observing that the petitioner herein is a tenant of Premises No.35 but not in respect of Premises No.34-B and there is no jural relationship between the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the landladies filed an appeal viz., R.C.A.No.118 of 2019 before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fixation of the rent of the property. Learned counsel would also assert that the area of property is 250 square feet but not 339 square feet and that there is a lease agreement dtd. 26/4/2007 and the tenant paid Rs.12,000.00 towards interest fee deposit, but it was suppressed by the landladies. He would also state that the premises is in a dilapidated condition, which was constructed about fifty years back and the tenant incurred Rs.2,50,000.00 for renovating the same and he has been maintaining the property at his cost. The premises is located in a lane but not in Abids and the entire market of the Abids was shifted to different places. Learned counsel would mainly dispute the GPAs executed by the landladies in favour of their mother under Ex.P1. He would also submit that the trial Court under mistaken impression held that the sale deed shows an area of the property is 339 square feet which is inclusive of common area though the carpet area of the premises is only 250 square feet. He would also contend that the appellate Court is not empowered to remand the matter for fixing the fair rent as per Sec. 20(3) read with Sec. 121(2) of Rent Control Act, and thus, the judgment is liable to be set aside.