L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashThe petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises bearing No. 1-8-522/22/2, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. The tenancy commenced about 20 years back with the rent of Rs. 450/- per month. Complaining that despite several demands the petitioner did not enhance the rent, the respondent/owner filed R.C. No. 13 of 2001 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for fixation of fair rent. She pleaded that having regard to the rental value of the property as well as the passage of time, ever since the commencement of tenancy, the rent deserves to be fixed at Rs. 2,500/- per month.
2. The petitioner opposed the application. One of the contentions raised by him was that the Rent Controller does not have the power and jurisdiction to enhance the rent beyond Rs. 1,000/-. The basis for this was that, only such buildings, whose rent does not exceed Rs. 1,000/- per month, are covered by the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (for short ''the Act''), and any proceedings initiated under the Act cannot result in enhancement of the rent beyond Rs. 1,000/-. Certain other subsidiary contentions were also advanced. Through its order dated 13-10-2003, the learned Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 2,000/- per month. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed R.A. No. 298 of 2003 in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed through order dated 18-11-2005. Hence, this C.R.P., u/s 22 of the Act.
3. The principle contention that the Rent Controller does not have the jurisdiction to enhance the rent to a sum, exceeding Rs. 1,000/-, is untenable. It is no doubt true that the premises whose monthly rent is more than Rs. 1,000/- is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The jurisdiction to fix fair rent in respect of the premises, which are otherwise amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, is unfettered. The Act itself stipulates the parameters for fixation of fair rent. If, on the basis of such parameters, it emerges that the fair rent deserves to be fixed at a figure higher than Rs. 1,000/-, there is nothing in law which precludes the Rent Controller from doing so. Restricting the power to enhance the fair rent only upto Rs. 1,000/-, would, in a way, amount to denial of the power, vested under the Act. It is a different thing that the buildings cease to be governed by the provisions of the Act, after its rent is fixed above ceiling limit.
4. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority, have followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in several reported decisions. By any standard, fixation of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the premises, comprising of four rooms of fairly good size, with all facilities, situated at an important residential locality, in a city like Hyderabad, does not appear to be abnormal. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below.
5. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
