Telangana High Court
Mahaveer Prasad Died vs Khaja Salimuddin on 16 June, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.140 of 2020, 2467, 2785 AND 2861
OF 2019
COMMON ORDER:
CRP No.140 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner-respondent-tenant
(Santosh Devi) aggrieved by the common judgment dated 08.08.2019
passed in RCA No.20 of 2018 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
2. CRP No.2467 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-appellant-
tenant (Santosh Devi) aggrieved by the common judgment dated
08.08.2019 passed in RCA No.7 of 2018 by the learned Additional Chief
Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
3. CRP No.2785 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-respondent-
tenant (Mahaveer Prasad) aggrieved by the common judgment dated
08.08.2019 passed in RCA No.21 of 2018 by the learned Additional Chief
Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
4. CRP No.2861 of 2019 is filed by the appellant-tenant
(Mahaveer Prasad) aggrieved by the common judgment dated 08.08.2019
passed in RCA No.06 of 2018 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
2
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred as ‘landlord’ and ‘tenants’.
6. The petitioner-tenant in CRP Nos.140 of 2020 and 2467 of
2019 was the wife of the petitioner-tenant in CRP Nos.2785 and 2861 of
2019. During the pendency of CRPs, the petitioner-tenant in CRP
Nos.2785 and 2861 of 2019 died and his Legal Representatives were
brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 5 in the said revision petitions.
7. The facts of the case in brief are that the landlord filed a
petition under Section 4(1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1960 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.C. Nos.405 of 2010 and 406 of 2010
against the tenants praying the Rent Controller to fix the fair rent at
Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/- per month in respect of the schedule properties
i.e. first floor of shop No.21-1-665-17 and ground floor of shop No.21-1-
665-7 respectively situated in Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad. The tenants of both
the above shops who were husband and wife were represented by their
GPA holder Mr. Rajesh Kumar, who was their son. The landlord filed the
Rent Control petitions through his GPA holder Mr. Khaja Naseeruddin,
who was none other than his father. The contention of the landlord was that
he was the absolute owner of the petition schedule properties and had given
3
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
the same on lease to the tenants on a rent of Rs.1,001/- each per month and
executed registered lease deeds on 24.05.2001. As per the lease deed, the
lease commenced from 01.05.2001 and it was for a period of 9 years. The
tenants agreed to enhance the rent @ 20% on the existing rent after
completion of three years. The petition schedule properties were let out for
the purpose of hosiery and readymade business. The tenants were carrying
on cloth business in wholesale and retail in the said premises. The schedule
properties were located in Rikab Gunj, which was one of the biggest
wholesale and retail cloth business in Hyderabad. Near the petition
schedule property, there were Sattar Market, God gift Market, where
wholesale and retail business was being carried. Opposite to the petition
schedule property, there was BJ Market, which was famous for wholesale
cloth business. The petition schedule property was one of the premier
business localities in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. It
was of RCC construction. There had been a revolutionary change in the
rate of r.ent, the value of the building, cost of construction and labour. As
per the market value certificate issued by the SRO, the value of the
property was Rs.8,30,000/-. Taking into consideration all the factors, the
schedule properties would easily fetch rent of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/-
per month, respectively. As such, the landlord filed the petitions before the
4
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
Rent Controller for fixing fair rent as such in respect of the schedule
properties.
8. The tenants filed their counters contending that the petitions
were not maintainable since the same were filed through the GPA holder.
The landlord had not provided any amenities for convenient enjoyment of
the shops. When the landlord refused to receive the rent, the tenants sent
notice under Section 8 of the Rent Control Act and later filed petitions in
RC Nos.13 of 2011 and 14 of 2011, respectively, seeking permission to
deposit monthly rents. The rents of the shops in Rikab Gunj were much
lesser than the demise premises, as claimed, which were located at better
places and some of them were located facing the main roads. In view of
rapid growth of twin cities, number of new markets were flooding,
wherever the localities were developing, resulting in giving birth to new
wholesale and retail markets, reducing the percentage of influx of the
customers in Rikabgunj area. There was no place for parking of scooters,
leaving apart moving of four wheelers, resulting in diminishing the inflow
of customers. With great difficulty, the rickshaw pullers were carrying
luggage manually. Section 4 of the Rent Control Act was not applicable
because the rent was being enhanced as per the terms of the lease deed.
The value of the properties was drastically slashed down beyond
5
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
expectations. The landlord was not entitled to claim the relief and prayed
to dismiss the petitions.
9. During the course of enquiry, the GPA holder of the landlord
was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On behalf of the
tenants, the GPA holder of the tenants was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1
was marked.
10. The learned IV Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes
Court, Hyderabad vide orders dated 16.11.2017 and 17.11.2017 allowed
RC Nos.405 and 406 of 2010, respectively, fixing the fair rent @
Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. at Rs.20/- per sft., for 250 sft., exclusive of
electricity and water consumption charges from the date of filing of the
petition and further held that the landlord was entitled for 10% periodical
enhancement for every two years.
11. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 16.11.2017 and 17.11.2017
passed in RC.Nos.405 and 406 of 2010, the unsuccessful tenants preferred
appeals before the court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court,
Hyderabad, under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act vide RCA Nos.7 of
2018 and 6 of 2018, respectively. The landlord filed Cross-Appeals vide
RCA Nos.20 of 2018 and 21 of 2018, respectively.
6
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
12. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court,
Hyderabad, disposed of the appeals filed by the tenants as well as the
landlord by a common judgment dated 08.08.2019. The learned Additional
Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dismissed RCA No.7 of
2018 filed by the tenant and allowed the cross appeal in RCA No.20 of
2018 filed by the landlord, determining the fair rent at Rs.35/- per sft., for
250 sft., i.e. Rs.8,750/- per month with periodical increase of rent at 20%
for every three years on the existing rent. In a similar manner, the learned
Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, also
dismissed RCA No.6 of 2018 filed by the tenant and allowed the cross-
appeal in RCA No.21 of 2018 filed by the landlord determining the fair
rent at Rs.35/- per sq.ft., for 250 sq.ft., i.e. Rs.8,750/- per month with
periodical increase of rent at 20% for every three years on the existing rent.
13. Assailing the correctness of the common judgment, dated
08.08.2019 in RCA No.7 of 2018 and RCA No.20 of 2018, the
unsuccessful tenant preferred CRP No.140 of 2020 and CRP No.2467 of
2019. In a similar manner, the unsuccessful tenant of ground floor of
schedule property i.e. shop No.21-1-665/7, preferred CRP Nos.2861 of
2019 and 2785 of 2019.
7
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
14. Heard Sri SVSSR Krishna Uppaluri, learned counsel
representing Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel on record for the revision
petitioners-tenants and Mohd. Ismail Ashfaq, learned counsel representing
Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel on record for the respondent-
landlord.
15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners-tenants contended
that both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court did not apply
their minds judiciously in appreciating the question of facts and law. They
failed to see that the landlord did not place any material much less
acceptable material to show that there was increase in the quantum of rents
in the locality. The landlord did not discharge the burden to establish the
prevailing rates of rent in the locality as on the date of filing of the petition
for fixation of fair rent. He had not let in any independent evidence to
demonstrate the prevailing rates of rent for fixation of fair rent. Except the
self serving testimony of PW.1 and Ex.P.4 the registered lease deed
pertaining to another tenant of the same landlord, which was not even
marked through PW.1 and not proved in accordance with law, there was no
independent material to establish the prevailing rate of rent for fixation of
fair rent. The courts below ought to have dismissed the petitions without
there being any acceptable evidence. The courts below failed to see that
8
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
Ex.P4 was brought into existence during the pendency of Rent Control
petitions before the Rent Controller and no credence could be attached to
the said document. The courts below ought to have seen that the extent of
the petition schedule properties was only 130 sq.ft. each but not 250 sq.ft.
The finding of the courts below that the extent of the petition schedule
properties were 250 sq. ft. each, was contrary to the material on record and
the same was liable to be set aside on the said ground. The courts below
failed to see that there was no mention about the extent of the properties
leased out in Ex.P1. The burden would lie on the landlord to prove the
extent leased out by him. The appellate court was not justified to improve
the case of the landlord basing on the weakness of the case of the tenant.
The appellate court ought to have appointed an Advocate Commissioner to
note down the extent of the petition schedule shops in the interest of justice
and ought to have allowed the interlocutory applications filed vide IA
Nos.141 and 142 of 2019 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
The appellate court committed error in dismissing the said petitions and the
findings of the appellate court were liable to be set aside. The findings of
the appellate court that adverse inference had to be drawn against the tenant
as no permission was sought by him to be represented by his GPA, was not
correct, as the petitions filed by RW.1 seeking permission to represent the
tenants as their GPA was allowed by the trial court vide orders in IA
9
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
Nos.220 of 2011 and 222 of 2011, respectively. RW.1 was the recognized
agent and GPA of tenants, as RW.1 was appointed as their Power of
Attorney by the tenants. The courts below failed to see that the landlord
did not file his title deed and property tax receipts to show the extent of the
property leased out. The landlord did not approach the court with clean
hands and suppressed the real facts. He was disentitled to contend that the
extent was 250 sq.ft., and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (dead)
by LRs. and another 1 on the aspect that non-disclosure of relevant facts
with a view to obtain advantage would amount to fraud.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other
hand, supported the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, contending that the lower appellate court
on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, fixed the fair
rent @ Rs.35/- per sq.ft, taking into consideration the location of the
property. The property was situated in Rikabgunj area, which was a
biggest wholesale and retail cloth market in the entire State. The tenants
were running a Hosiery shop. The property was given on a rent of
Rs.1,001/- in the year 2001 through registered lease deed dated 24.05.2001
for a period of 9 years and the tenant agreed to enhance the rent at 20% on
1
(1994) 1 SCC 1
10
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
the existing rent after completion of three years. The schedule properties
were provided with all amenities. The property was located in a big
building consisting of ground, first, second and third floors. It was a
business complex. Near the petition schedule property, there was A.P.
Cloth Association building comprising of three floors wherein also
wholesale and retail cloth business was being run. Several markets like
Madina Market and Pattargatthi, which were famous for cloth and footwear
business, were near the petition schedule property. It was one of the
premier business localities in the twin cities. No vacant mulgi was available
in the said locality. The density of the shops was very low and the influx of
customers was very high. Due to the high density of customers, business
was even carried on the footpath. The landlord filed the market valuation
certificate issued by the SRO, wherein the value of the property was
recorded as Rs.8,30,000/- which would prove that the petition schedule
properties would easily fetch the amounts as demanded by the landlord as
rent which was fair and reasonable. After filing of RC petitions in the year
2010, there was no enhancement of rent. The landlord filed the lease deed
of another tenant, but the tenants had not filed any other lease deed or
examined any witness to show that the rent was not even Rs.7,000/-. The
schedule appended to the applications would clearly show the extent of the
property as 250 sq.ft. No counter was filed by the tenants to show that the
11
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
properties were not to an extent of 250 sq.ft., but the extent of the schedule
property was only 130 sq.ft. The tenants had not chosen to enter into the
witness box. The tenants were in occupation of properties since 2001 and
there was no enhancement of rent since then. They were not even paying
sufficient rent and relied upon the judgments of the Full Bench of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh in Surjit Singh v. Pritam Singh2 on the aspect
that for fixing the fair rent what had to be considered was the locality in
which it was situated and considerations as to the extent of the
accommodation and the amenities it afforded. He further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh 3 on the aspect that concurrent
findings of fact could not be interfered in revision petitions. He relied upon
the judgment of this Court in CRP No.1650 of 2019, dated 30.08.2019 on
the aspect that the registered lease deed being a public record of private
document can be considered as public document under Section 74 of the
Evidence Act and can be marked without formal proof of examining any
witness in proof of it. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in N. Motilal and others v. Faisal Bin Ali and another4 on
the aspect that during the subsistence of lease agreement also, the landlord
2
AIR 1975 HP 43 (FB)
3
(2014) 9 SCC 78
4
(2020) 13 SCC 667
12
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
could make an application for determining the fair rent under Section 4 of
the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
17. Perused the record.
18. On perusal of the record, the Rent Controller, on considering
the oral and documentary evidence on record and by taking into
consideration that the schedule premises was located in Rikabgunj, which
was a commercial area, fixed the fair rent at Rs.20/- per sq.ft., taking the
extent of the schedule property as 250 sq.ft., (Rs.20/- x 250 = Rs.5,000/-
per month as fair rent) exclusive of electricity and water consumption
charges from the date of petition with 10% periodical enhancement for
every two years.
19. In the appeals preferred by both the tenants as well as the
landlord against the said order, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad vide common judgment dated 08.08.2019
dismissed the appeals preferred by the tenants with costs quantified at
Rs.10,000/- and allowed the appeals preferred by the landlord determining
the fair rent at Rs.35/- per sq.ft. for 250 sq.ft., (Rs.35/- x 250 sq.ft.) i.e.
Rs.8,750/- per month from the date of filing the petition exclusive of
electricity and water consumption charges and other charges as agreed
between the parties with periodical enhancement of rent at 20% for every
13
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
three years on the existing rent and granted two months time to the tenant
to pay the arrears of fair rent determined by the court.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh (3 supra) while considering the
scope of revisional powers of High Court under various State Rent Acts of
Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala held that the provisions under
consideration would not permit the High Court to invoke its revisional
jurisdiction under the clock of an appeal in disguise and the revisional court
was not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own
conclusion in place of the conclusion of the appellate authority. In dealing
with the findings of fact, the examination of findings of fact by the High
Court is limited to satisfy itself that the decision is according to law. The
conferment of power on High Court under the provisions of the Rent Acts
is to satisfy itself as to the “legality, regularity or propriety” of decision of
appellate authorities or that it is according to law. Whether or not a finding
of fact recorded by the subordinate court/tribunal is “according to law”, is
required to be seen on the touchstone whether such finding of fact is based
on some legal evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of
the evidence or overlooking and ignoring the material evidence altogether
or suffers from perversity or any such illegality or such finding has resulted
in gross miscarriage of justice. It further held that when compared with
14
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
appellate jurisdiction, the expression “revision” is meant to convey the idea
of a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by expression “appeal”.
Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing while it is not so
in the case of revisional jurisdiction.
21. In the light of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court
elucidating the scope of the revisional power of the High Court, when the
contentions of the revision petitioners are looked into, their main
contention was that the courts below failed to consider that the extent of the
schedule property was only 130 sq.ft, but erroneously fixed the said extent
as 250 sq.ft., without there being any evidence from the side of the
landlord.
22. The revision petitioners preferred I.A. Nos.1 of 2019 in CRP
No.2861 of 2019 and CRP No.2467 of 2019 to receive the extract of the
assessment made by GHMC wherein the extent of the property pertaining
to D.No.21-1-665/7 and 21-1-665/17, respectively, was shown as 130 sq.ft.
But, the said documents were not filed before the Rent Controller or before
the Rent Control Appellate Court. As the scope of revision is limited, this
Court cannot entertain fresh evidence at this stage. Before the lower
appellate Court, the tenant filed an application for appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner for local inspection of the schedule properties.
15
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
The applications were dismissed observing that they were filed at the fag-
end of the appeals and that the extent of the schedule properties was not
denied by the tenants in the counter filed before the Rent Controller and no
rebuttal evidence was adduced to establish that the extent of the schedule
properties was not 250 sq.ft. The lower appellate court observed that in the
schedule appended to the Rent Control Application, the extent of the
property was shown as 250 sq. ft., but the tenants had not chosen to file
counter-affidavits nor entered into witness box to testify the facts
mentioned in the counters filed by RW.1.
23. Prima facie, the tenants had not raised any dispute with regard
to the extent of the property. Before the lower appellate court, the tenants
contended the extent of the property as 165 sq.ft., and in the revision, they
are now contending that the extent was only 130 sq.ft. As rightly observed
by the lower appellate court, there were no pleadings with regard to the
aspect that the extent of the property was not 250 sq.ft. There was no
cross-examination even on PW.1 on that aspect. As such, the lower
appellate court observed that there being no proper foundation in the
counter by the tenants it was not legally permissible for the tenants for the
first time to raise controversy at the stage of appeals with regard to the
extent of the petition schedule property. As the scope of revisional
jurisdiction is still narrower confined to jurisdictional errors and does not
16
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
permit re-appreciation of evidence or introduction of new evidence or
documents, this Court cannot permit new evidence to be introduced at this
stage. As such, I.A.Nos.1 of 2019 in both the CRPs 2861 of 2019 and 2467
of 2019 are dismissed.
24. While rejecting the application for appointment of the
Advocate Commissioner also, the lower appellate court observed that the
tenants kept quiet from 2010 till 29.04.2019 for filing the applications for
appointment of Advocate Commissioner and for want of basic pleadings,
the said applications were not maintainable. This Court does not find any
material irregularity or illegality or impropriety in the observations of the
lower appellate court to set aside the same.
25. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners was that it was improper to rely upon the document
marked as Ex.P4 pertaining to the lease deed of another tenant executed by
the landlord without any corroborative evidence adduced by the landlord to
show the value of the rent of neighbouring properties, the document was
not marked either through PW.1 or through the said tenant, no opportunity
was provided for cross-examining the witness on the said document, as
such, the same has no evidentiary value.
17
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
25.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord on this aspect
relied upon the order of this Court in CRP No.1650 of 2019 dated
30.08.2019 wherein also a similar contention was raised that the appellate
authority could not have relied upon the rental deed marked as Ex.P.8 to
arrive at fair rent because nobody connected with the said document was
examined as a witness. The learned Judge while considering the provisions
under Sections 72 and 76 of the Evidence Act and the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Madamanchi Ramapa and another v.
Muthaluru Bojjappa 5, State of Haryana v. Ram Singh 6 and Shyam Lal
v. Sanjeev Kumar and others7, Gopal Das and another v. Sri Thakurji
and others8 and also of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.E.V. Venkatachala
Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswaraswamy and V.P. Temple and
another9, held that:
“The certified copy of a public document is admissible in
evidence even without formal proof i.e. without
examining any person connected with the said document.
The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority
rightly followed Ex.P8 in arriving at fair rent of Rs.60/-
per sq.yd., and their assessment of evidence does not
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this
Court under Section 22 of the Act.”
5
AIR 1963 SC 1633
6
AIR 2001 SC 2532
7
AIR 2009 SC 3115
8
AIR (30) 1943 PRIVY COUNCIL 83
9
(2003) 8 SCC 752
18
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
26. As the said principles are also applicable for placing reliance
upon Ex.P4 by the courts below in fixing the fair rent, this Court does not
find any infirmity in the order of the lower appellate court by taking the
said document into consideration in fixing the fair rent.
27. However, imposing of costs on the tenants by the lower
appellate court is considered as exceeding its jurisdiction as no reasoning
was given by the lower appellate court in coming to the conclusion for
imposing costs upon them and no conduct of the tenants was recorded for
coming to such conclusion. As such, the imposition of costs is considered
as erroneous and as such the same is liable to be set aside. This Court does
not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate
court on other aspects to set aside the same.
28. In the result, all the CRPs are dismissed confirming the
common judgment dated 08.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RCA Nos.7/2018, 20
of 2018, 6 of 2018 and 21 of 2018 in fixation of fair rent at Rs.35/- per sq.ft
for an extent of 250 sq.ft., (250 Sq.ft. x Rs.35/- per sq.ft.= Rs.8,750/-) for
each of the petition schedule properties from the date of filing of the RCs.,
and its periodical enhancement at 20% for every three years on the existing
19
Dr.GRR, J
CRP Nos.140 of 2020 & Batch
rent. The arrears of fair rent at the above said rate shall be paid within a
period of two months from the date of this order. However, to the extent of
imposition of costs on the tenants, the judgment of the lower appellate
Court is set aside. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr.G. RADHA RANI, J
Date:16.06.2025
KTL