Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 447 (MAD)

Rajrani Devi v. Yacoob Sheriff

1988-11-17

SRINIVASAN

body1988
ORDER Srinivasan, J. 1. These two revisions arise out of an application for fixation of fair rent filed by the respondent herein. The agreed rent was Rs. 355 fixed under a registered lease deed dated 4.2.1964, a registration copy of which has been marked as Ex.R.2. The lease is for a period of 25 yea Rs. The application for fair rent has been filed in June, 1983. The respondent claimed that a sum of Rs. 5,900 per mensem shall be the fair rent for the building. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,725 per mensem. There were appeals by both the petitioner and the respondent before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 3,973 per mensem. The aggrieved tenant has preferred these revision petitions. 2. Two contentions are urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is that the petitioner for fixation of fair rent is not maintainable as the contract of lease is for a period of 25 yea Rs. According to learned Counsel, the landlord is not entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent before the expiry of the contract period, namely, 25 yea Rs. It is argued that no fair rent petition could be filed before 4-2-1989. Unfortunately for the petitioner a similar contention has been found against by the Supreme Court in Raval and Co. v. KG. Ramachandran. The decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Bapalal and Co. v. P. Thakurdas. Hence, I cannot accept the first contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. The second contention urged by learned Counsel is this: The demised premises comprises of an area of 8475 sq.ft. of land. The plinth area of the building which was leased out to the tenant was 2455 sq.ft. according to the evidence of P.W.1. The tenant has constructed a superstructure of an extent of 3018 sq.ft. 3. The second contention urged by learned Counsel is this: The demised premises comprises of an area of 8475 sq.ft. of land. The plinth area of the building which was leased out to the tenant was 2455 sq.ft. according to the evidence of P.W.1. The tenant has constructed a superstructure of an extent of 3018 sq.ft. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that under the proviso to Section 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the area of the vacant land which has to be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the fair rent should be 3312 sq.ft., fifty per cent of which should be taken for calculating the market value of the site and the remaining part of the vacant land being treated as amenity. Learned Counsel urges that the "building" contemplated by the proviso to Section 4(4) would include the superstructure constructed by the tenant and the entire plinth area of the building, whether constructed by the landlord or by the tenant, should be excluded while arriving at the extent of vacant land. I do not agree with this contention. The word used in the proviso is "building". Section 2(2) of the Act defines building as "any building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes". If the definition is applied to the proviso to Section 4(4), it is clear that the "building" mentioned in the proviso would only refer to the building which has been let out to the tenant. It cannot by any stretch of imagination include the building constructed by the tenant. The tenant is certainly having the advantage of the space on which he has constructed a superstructure. Having put that portion of tie vacant land to profitable use, it is not open to the tenant to contend that he is not liable to pay any rent either, for that portion of the land for the building erected by him. Certainly, the stature cannot compel him to pay rent for the superstructure erected by him. But, he will be liable to pay rent for the land which has been utilised by him for the purpose of erecting the superstructure. Certainly, the stature cannot compel him to pay rent for the superstructure erected by him. But, he will be liable to pay rent for the land which has been utilised by him for the purpose of erecting the superstructure. Consequently, the vacant land appurtenant to the building which was let out by the landlord to the tenant should be considered for the purpose of proviso to Section 4(4) of the Act. 4. The authorities below have rightly taken into account the extent of vacant land for arriving at the market value of the site. There is no merit in the revision petitions. Hence the Civil Revision Petitions fail and they are dismissed. The petitioner will pay costs in C.R.P. No. 2730 of 1986 to the respondent. These will be no order as to costs in C.R.P. No. 2731 of 1986.