1 / 6 13 wp 2591.22 + connect. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2591 OF 2022 Shri Suryakant s/o Ramchandra (Dead thr. LRs. Raghatate) and ors. Vs. Shri Vijaykumar s/o Swarup Shrivastava WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2596 OF 2022 Shri Suryakant s/o Ramchandra (Dead thr. LRs. Raghatate) and ors. Vs. Shri Dalchand s/o Hariprasad Lanchuriya and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.G. Paunikar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE : 08.01.2026 1. Both the writ petitions have challenged two different orders dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur who happens to be the Appellate Authority to the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, thereby remanding the matters to Rent Controller, Nagpur for fresh consideration. manisha 2026:BHC-NAG:575 2 / 6 13 wp 2591.22 + connect. 2. Since, both the petitions raise a common issue; rather, in both the petitions, the petitioner- Land Lord is the same and the respondents are two different tenants of the petitioner, the matter is being decided together. 3. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller, Nagpur for fixation of fair rent of two different premises which have been let out to the respondents. The petitioner examined three witnesses including the valuer. The Rent Controller, by two different orders dated 12.09.2012, fixed the rate of both the premises @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. The respondent carried the order of the Rent Controller in appeal before the Additional Collector, Nagpur who after hearing both the parties, remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration only on the ground that the Rent Controller has fixed the fair rent @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. vide orders dated 14.12.2020. Thereafter, a Review Application was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, who upheld the order dated 14.12.2020. Thus, the orders dated 30.03.2021 passed in the Review Application are challenged in these petitions. 4. Mr. D.G. Paunikar, Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is ample evidence on manisha 3 / 6 13 wp 2591.22 + connect. record to show that the market rate of rent of the premises is more than Rs.2600/-, whereas calculation @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. comes around Rs.1500/-. According to him, the premises is situated at a popular commercial area in Sitaburdi. The rent fixed by the Rent Controller, Nagpur at the rate of Rs.5 per sq. ft. is already on the lower side if the deposition of the valuer is considered. Therefore, the finding of the learned Additional Collector for remand of the matter appears to be incorrect and the orders passed by the Rent Controller are just and proper. 5. Per contra, Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the application is filed in the year 1987. Though, the valuer has been examined by the petitioner, there is no evidence on record to identify what was the prevailing rate of rent in the year 1987. Therefore, he supports the finding of the learned Additional Collector. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the evidence of the valuer is not worthy of acceptance, since he has admitted various vital aspects in the cross-examination. manisha 4 / 6 13 wp 2591.22 + connect. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned orders and evidence on record, it is revealed that the petitioner has examined himself, and one valuer apart from one more witness. The petitioner has claimed rent at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. and accordingly, he has deposed in that regard. Perusal of the evidence of Vasudev Kukde reveals that he has ascertained that in the year 2005, the rent of the suit premises was fixed @ rate of Rs.8142.47/- per month, and the said premises in the year 1987-88 ought to have received the rent at the rate of Rs.2605/- per month. 7. Needless to mention that, the suit premises occupied by the respondent in Writ Petition No.2596/2022 is about 240 sq.ft.; whereas, carpet area of the suit premises in Writ Petition No.2591/2022 is approximately 348 sq.ft. If the evidence of the valuer is perused and the rent is calculated as per the valuer in square ft., it would reveal that the valuer has assessed the prevailing market value in the year 1987 to be approximately between Rs.8 to 10 per sq.ft. However, since the petitioner had claimed the rent at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft., the Rent Controller was bound to consider manisha 5 / 6 13 wp 2591.22 + connect. fair rent in square feet on the basis of the market value of rent. 8. Having this material on record, the finding recorded by the Additional Collector that there is no evidence showing that the premises can fetch rent at the rate of Rs.5/- sq.ft is erroneous and factually incorrect. Though, the Rent Controller has fixed the rent in terms of the Rs.5/- sq. ft. there is evidence of the valuer who has calculated the rent per square ft. which was more than Rs.5/- sq.ft. Therefore, finding recorded by the Additional Collector does not stand. 9. This takes me to the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that considering the market value, rent fixed by the Rent Controller is excess than the prevailing rent. 10. Needless to mention that, it is brought on record that the suit premises are situated at Sitaburdi, Nagpur and commercial activities are being carried in the said premises. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the valuer in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not enquired about the rent being paid manisha 6 / 6 13 wp 2591.22 + connect. by the tenants of the buildings in the neighbourhood. 11. No doubt, apart from the area where the property is situated, the quality of construction of building is also material while deciding the fair rent. The Rent Controller has not granted the rent at the rate Rs.8/-, which is the value per square feet as per the Valuer i.e. Vasudev Kukde who was examined by the petitioner; the condition of the building perhaps may be the reason for fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. Therefore, no perversity is seen in the orders of the Rent Controller, Nagpur. Therefore, the orders dated 30.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Nagpur in the case bearing no. jsaV daVªksy Review izdj.k izdj.k dz-3@vs&71 (1)@2020&21 and case bearing no.jsaV daVªksy Review izdj.k dz-2@vs&71 (1)@2020&21 aare hereby set aside by maintaining the order passed by the Rent Controller, Nagpur. 12. Accordingly Writ Petitions are disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) manisha