Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1083 (MAD)

M. L. Yacoob Sheriff (deceased) v. Rajrani Devi

2001-09-14

P.THANGAVEL

body2001
Judgment : 1. These civil revision petitions were filed against the common judgment and decrees dated 30.4.1998 and made in R.C.A. Nos.269 of 1997 and 271 of. 1997 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras confirming the order of the learned iXm Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in R.C.O.P, No.2434 of 1983 dated 31.1.1997. 2. M.L.Yacoob Sheriff, who was the petitioner 'in the Rent Control Original Petition, was the owner of the property described in the Rent Control Original Petition. He died on 3.3.1995 while this matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A. Nos.3557 of 1989 and 3558 of 1989. The petitioners 1 to 5 in Civil Revision Petition No.895 of 1999 are the legal representatives of the deceased M.L.Yacoob Sheriff. M.L.Yacoob Sheriff leased out the property described in the amended Rent Control Petition to Rajrani Devi, who is the respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.895 of 1999 and revision petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.535 of 2000 for a sum of Rs.255 per month inclusive of maintenance and water charges. For convenient reference, the revision petitioners in C.R.P. No.895 of 1999, who are the respondents in C.R.P. No.535 of 2000, be referred to as the 'revision petitioners' while the respondent in C.R.P. No.895 of 1999, who is the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No.535 of 2000, be referred to as the 'respondent'. In the premises let .out to the respondent, who is the tenant, there is a building measuring about 2455 Sqft apart from a vacant site measuring about 6664 Sqft described in item Nos. 1 and 2 in the lease agreement entered into between M.L.Yacoob Sheriff, the father of the revision petitioners, and the respondent on 29.1.1964. The property is situated at Thambu Chetty Lane, Royapuram, Madras-13 wherein Police Quarters, Hospital, Cinema Theatre and market, etc. are situated. The building is aged about 33 years and was constructed with cement and mortar with ACC roof. The market value of the site will be Rs. 2 lakhs per ground. Schedule I amenity of 25% and basic amenities of 10% have to be given for the amenities provided for the above said property. Though the old door number for the items l and 2 described in the lease agreement were 47A and 48, the corresponding new door Nos. are 5 and 4 respectively. 2 lakhs per ground. Schedule I amenity of 25% and basic amenities of 10% have to be given for the amenities provided for the above said property. Though the old door number for the items l and 2 described in the lease agreement were 47A and 48, the corresponding new door Nos. are 5 and 4 respectively. It is on these grounds, the fair rent of Rs.5,900 per month was sought to be fixed in the original petition but revised claim of Rs.6,456 per month was claimed as fair rent in the amended petition. 3. The respondent, who is the tenant of the demised premises, resisted the claim made by M.L.Yacoob Sheriff and after him by the revision petitioners on the following grounds: The respondent, who became a sub-tenant under the erstwhile tenant, became direct tenant under M.L.Yacoob Sheriff for the property described in the Rent Control Original Petition by means of a registered lease agreement dated 29.1.1964 and the same was registered on 4.2.1964. The lease period was 25 years. Both parties agreed to for payment of Rs.l00 per month towards rent, apart from other charges of Rs.75 towards maintenance, Rs.65 towards water charges and Rs.15 towards maintenance of water pipeline totalling to Rs.255 per month. The area mentioned in the petition as constructed area is admitted. But the vacant site for appurtenant to the building described in the first item of the lease agreement is 840 Sqft, alone and the remaining 5824 Sqft was leased out only as vacant land. The respondent herein had put up construction in the vacant land of 5824 Sqft to an extent of 3018 Sqft at her own cost. The age of the building will be about 40 years and the market value of the site will be Rs.27,141 per ground. The revision petitioners are not entitled to basic amenity of 10% and Schedule I amenity of 25% for the premises let out to the respondent. The respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 9 of the City Tenant's Protection Act with regard to 5824 Sqft in which the respondent has put up construction to an extent of 3018 Sqft. For calculating the market value of the land, the vacant site of 5824 Sqft cannot be taken into consideration but only 840 Sqft of vacant land, which is appurtenant to the building owned by the landlords, has to be taken into consideration. For calculating the market value of the land, the vacant site of 5824 Sqft cannot be taken into consideration but only 840 Sqft of vacant land, which is appurtenant to the building owned by the landlords, has to be taken into consideration. On these grounds, the respondent has claimed that the rent that is being paid at Rs.2055 is fair and reasonable and there is no need to fix the fair rent either at Rs.5900 or at Rs.6456 per month as claimed. 4. After considering the material evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.2725 per month in his order dated 18.9.1984 in R.C.O.P. No.2434 of 1983 on the file of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras at the first instance. Aggrieved at the order and decretal order dated 18.9.1984 and made in R.C.O.P. No.2434 of 1983, the landlord M.L.Yacoob Sheriff filed the appeal in R.C.A. No.252 of 1985 while the respondent (tenant), has filed the appeal in R.C.A. No.234 of 1985 on the file of the learned iVm Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. After considering the submissions made on both sides, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had fixed the fair rent at Rs.3,972 per month by allowing the appeal filed by M.L.Yacoob Sheriff as landlord in R.C.A. No.252 of 1985 and dismissed the appeal in R.C.A. No.234 of 1985 filed by the respondent (tenant) as appellant by common judgment dated 29.10.1985. Aggrieved at the common judgment and decrees dated 29.10.1985, the tenant, the respondent herein, preferred civil revision petitions in C.R.P. Nos.2730 of 1986 and 2731 of 1986 against the common judgment and decrees in R.C.A. Nos.252 of 1985 and 234 of 1985 respectively. After considering the submissions made on both sides in both Civil Revision Petitions, this Court was pleased to confirm the common judgment and decrees passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and dismissed both Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos.2730 of 1986 and 2731 of 1986 by common order dated 17.11.1988. Aggrieved at the said common order, the tenant, who is the respondent herein, had filed Special Leave Petitions and they were admitted and numbered as C.A. Nos.3557 of 1989 and 3558 of 1989 on the file of the Honourable Apex Court. Since the revision petitioners and the respondent herein have relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in H.C.Lodha v. Dr. Since the revision petitioners and the respondent herein have relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in H.C.Lodha v. Dr. C.Ranganathan and others, AIR 1989 Mad. 225 to fix the fair rent and persuaded the Apex Court to direct this High Court to follow the abovesaid Full Bench ruling to fix the fair rent, the Apex Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the High Court, Madras in the civil revision petitions thereby allowing the Civil Appeals referred to above without costs and remanded the matter back to the High Court, Madras to dispose of the Civil Revision petitions by fixing fair rent in the light of the Full Bench decisions referred to above within a period of six months. The Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos.2730 of 1986 and 2731 of 1986 were restored to file on the file of this Court and arguments were advanced on both sides before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge was pleased to hold as follows: " 6. According to the petitioner in the revision petitions, for the purpose of fixing fair rent for a building, the Court has to take into account only the area of the building let out by the landlord viz., 2455 Sqft plus one half thereof and arrive at the market value of the same. The entire remaining extent of vacant site let out by the landlord should be taken only as amenity. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent / landlord is that for the purpose of calculating the market value of the site, the total extent on which the building as at present stands, i.e., the building put up by the landlord plus the building put up by the tenant should be taken into account plus one half of the said site for the purpose of calculating the market value of the site. It is only the remaining extent of site, which should be considered as amenity. "7. To my knowledge, this question has not arisen in any case previously. The decision of the Full Bench does no appear to govern this case and the ruling may apply only by there is a simple case of a building, let out by the Landlord plus a vacant site appurtenant to the building. "7. To my knowledge, this question has not arisen in any case previously. The decision of the Full Bench does no appear to govern this case and the ruling may apply only by there is a simple case of a building, let out by the Landlord plus a vacant site appurtenant to the building. This is a case, in which there is abuilding constructed by the landlord and let out to the tenant and a building constructed by the tenant on a portion of the site let out to her as appurtenant to the building. Counsels on both sides say that there has been no reported decision on this point. As this is an important question, it is better that it is dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court ." With the above said observation, the matter was placed before My Lord, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for referring the matter to a Division Bench and accordingly, the matter was referred to before a Division Bench consisting of Their Lordships Mr.Justice M.Srinivasan and Mr. Justice S.S.Subramani. 5. Beforethe Division Bench referred to above, the respondent herein had insisted that the second item of the property described in the lease agreement dated 29.1.1964 marked as Ex.R2 was a different item from the first item, having a different door number and it was a vacant land with respect of which the Rent Control Original Petition was not filed. In other words, it was contended by the respondent herein that the petition filed for fixation of fair rent relates only to the first item of the property described in the lease agreement referred to above and not for the second item described therein. In view of the submission made above, the landlord filed a petition for amendment of the Rent Control Original Petition to include the second item of the property described in the registered lease agreement dated 29.1.1964 stating that the fair rent sought for in the Rent Control Original Petition was for both items described in the registered lease agreement even though the first item of the property described in Ex.R.2 alone has been described in the said petition. After considering the submissions made on both sides, in the interest of justice, the Division Bench was pleased to permit the revision petitioners to amend the Original Petition including the second item of the property described in Ex.R.2. After considering the submissions made on both sides, in the interest of justice, the Division Bench was pleased to permit the revision petitioners to amend the Original Petition including the second item of the property described in Ex.R.2. In view of the allowing of the amendment petition by the abovesaid Division Bench, the matter was remitted back to the learned Rent Controller with liberty being given to the respondent to file additional counter in the Rent Control Original Petition after amendment of the Original Petition as ordered by the Division Bench and permission was also accorded to both sides to let in further oral and documentary evidence to decide as to whether no fair rent can be fixed with regard to the second item of the property described in Ex.R.2 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions were allowed and orders passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to decide the matter on or before 24.12.1996. 6. As directedby the Division Bench of this Court, the Rent Control Original Petition was amended and additional counter was filed. Oral and documentary evidence were adduced before the learned Rent Controller. After considering the material evidence available on record after remand, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.3,114 per month after holding the site of the built-in area of the building owned by the revision petitioners plus 50% of the above said built-in area of the said building as the relevant area for deciding the market value of the site. While doing so, the claim made by the respondent that she is entitled to the benefit of Section 9 of the City Tenant's Protection Act was rejected. While rejecting the above said claim, the other area, which was shown as item No.2 in Ex.R.2, was treated only as vacant site appurtenant thereto to the building constructed by the deceased M.L.Yacoob Sheriff and the site on which the building constructed by the respondent herein was also not taken into consideration as site of built-up area to fix the fair rent. Aggrieved at the said order and decretal order dated.31.1.1997 passed by the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the revision petitioners filed the appeal in R.C.A. No.269 of 1997 while the respondent herein has filed the appeal in R.C.A. No.271 of 1997 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. After considering the submissions made on both sides in the abovesaid appeals, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals by a common judgment dated 30.4.1998 confirming the order and decretal orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on 31.1.1997. Aggrieved at the abovesaid common judgment and decrees dated 30.4.1998, the revision petitioners filed the revision petition in C.R.P. No.895 of 1999 while the respondent herein filed the revision petition in C.R.P. No.535 of 2000 on the file of this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent herein contends that late M.L.Yacoob Sheriff, the erstwhile landlord, had himself admitted that the built-in area of the premises let out to the respondent herein is 2400 Sqft in Ex.R.2 as well as in the Rent Control Original Petition, even though the same was enlarged as 2455 Sqft in Ex.P.1, the report of the Engineer, who was examined as PW-1 before the learned Rent. Controller. But the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had taken the built-in area as 2579 Sqft. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent herein contends that the built-in area taken by the Courts below should not be sustained. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contends contra to this. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly conceded that his Engineer, after inspection of the demised property, had stated in his report, Ex.Rl, that the building leased out by the father of the revision petitioners is 2579 Sqft and also in the evidence of the Engineer, who was examined as RW1 before the Rent Control Court, he has confirmed the above said area as leased out built-in area. In view of the said position, the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority had rightly relied on the report of the Engineer, Ex.R.I, and the evidence of the Engineer, RW1, to hold that the built-in area let out by the father of the revision petitioners is 2,579 Sqft. 8. In view of the said position, the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority had rightly relied on the report of the Engineer, Ex.R.I, and the evidence of the Engineer, RW1, to hold that the built-in area let out by the father of the revision petitioners is 2,579 Sqft. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent herein contends that allowing 10% towards basic amenities and 25% towards Schedule I amenities for the purpose of calculating the value of the property to fix the fair rent is on the higher side and, therefore, it has to be reduced considerably. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contends that if the basic amenities provided in the premises and the vacant area remains as appurtenant thereto are taken into consideration, the percentage adopted for basic amenities and Schedule I amenities cannot be held to be on the higher side. The fact remains that there is water tap, overhead tank, drainage, electricity, motor pumpset and vacant site measuring about 6664 sqft as appurtenant in the above said building inclusive of the site on which the respondent herein had put up construction subsequent to the lease. If the above said facilities available in the demised property are taken into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the basic amenities and Schedule I amenities should be fixed at 10% and 25% respectively. 9. There is no serious dispute with regard to the cost of construction adopted by the Courts below to arrive at the building value for fixation of fair rent. But the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the lease in favour of the respondent by the erstwhile landlord was in two categories viz., (1) building with vacant land appurtenant thereto, and (2) vacant land alone described as item Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Ex.R.2. But the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contends that the lease is a composite lease consisting of building and vacant site and that there is no separate lease for building and vacant site appurtenant thereto and another separate lease for vacant site alone. 1 and 2 respectively in Ex.R.2. But the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contends that the lease is a composite lease consisting of building and vacant site and that there is no separate lease for building and vacant site appurtenant thereto and another separate lease for vacant site alone. A perusal of Ex-R.2 the lease agreement executed by late M.L.Yacoob Sheriff, the father of the revision petitioners, in favour of Rajrani Devi, the respondent herein, would disclose that the lease of the property mentioned in the Schedule to the agreement was for a period of 25 years. It is also evident from a perusal of the lease agreement that the premises bearing door No.26 and new door No.47-A (present door No.5) with a building and vacant land of 840 Sqft and part of old Door No.48 and present door No.4, the vacant site measuring 5824 Sqft were let out to the respondent herein. It is relevant to point out that both the properties are situate adjacent to each other and the said property though are shown as situate at Sheik Maistry Street, Royapuram and in Thambu Chetty Lane, Royapuram, Madras, are admittedly situate at Thambu Chetty Lane, Royapuram, Madras. 10. A perusal of the lease agreement would further disclose that the rent for the property described as mentioned above was fixed between the lessor and lessee at Rs.l00 per mensem towards rent, Rs.75 towards maintenance charges, Rs.65 towards well water charges and Rs.15 towards Corporation pipeline totalling to Rs.225 per month. If it is the intention of the erstwhile landlord to lease out first item and second item described in the Schedule separately, i.e., one for building with appurtenant thereto and another for vacant site, then the rent ought to have been fixed separately for item No.1 as well as item No.2. The fact of not fixing the rent separately for both items in Ex.R.2 would lend support that the intention of the parties to the agreement should be to treat the lease as composite lease consisting of building and vacant site. A perusal of the agreement Ex.R.2 further would disclose that the respondent herein was permitted to put up construction at his own cost in the vacant site but it has not been specifically mentioned by treating the vacant site in item No.l and the vacant site in item No.2 as separate vacant sites. A perusal of the agreement Ex.R.2 further would disclose that the respondent herein was permitted to put up construction at his own cost in the vacant site but it has not been specifically mentioned by treating the vacant site in item No.l and the vacant site in item No.2 as separate vacant sites. But on the other hand, the respondent herein was given liberty to put up construction at her cost and remove the same and deliver vacant possession at the time of delivery of possession of the demised property to the landlord after the period of agreement. If the said circumstances are taken into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the lease under Ex.R.2 by the landlord to the tenant is only a composite lease and not two different leases and that, therefore, the lease of the second item described in Ex.R.2 cannot be treated as a lease of vacant site cannot be interfered with. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that for working out the market value of the vacant land, the Courts below ought to have taken the site of the built-in area let out by the landlord and the site on which construction was put up by the respondent herein plus 50% of the site on which both the buildings referred to above stand. It is relevant to point out that the Courts below have omitted to take into consideration the site on which the building was constructed by the respondent herein plus 50% of the said area for the purpose of calculating the market value of the land. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein contends contra stating that the site on which the building put up by the respondent herein and 50% of the above said area should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the land and, therefore, the Courts below were right in taking the site on which the building constructed by the landlord stands plus 50% of such area for arriving at the market value of the land. The learned counsel for the respondent further would contend that the above question was referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court before constitution of the Division Bench and before remand of this matter by the said Division Bench, that the existence of rulings on this point was not noted by the counsel appearing on either side and, therefore, it was brought to the notice of this Court then that there is no decision in this respect, that there are two decisions laid down by this Court already on this point and that, therefore, the matter need not be referred to a larger Bench and can be decided in the light of the decision of this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, though concedes with regard to the submission made above by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, contends that the said ruling cannot be relied upon to decide the issue before this Court. 12. In C.S.Rajavelan and others v. A.N.Parasurama Iyer, 1969 (83) LW 524, His Lordship Ramaprasada Rao, J (as he then was) has held as follows: "Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the words "non-residential building" appearing in S.4 (3)(b)(ii) include the buildings or structures raised by the tenant and thus interpreted the market value of .the portion of the site on which the non-residential buildings were erected by the tenant ought also to be considered for the purposes of arriving at the fair rent for the non-residential building in question. Reliance is also placed on Rule 13 of the Rules framed under the Act to support the contention. Courts can only interpret law but cannot declare it. S.4(3)(b)(ii) is one of the limbs of the Section enabling the Controller to fix the fair rent of properties under Act 18 of 1960. It provides for such fixation of fair rent for any non-residential building let out by landlord to a tenant. A building under S.2(2) means "any building ....let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building to let along with the building". It cannot be said therefore, that the article, "the" appearing in S.4(4)(b)(ii ) is referable to "any" building other than the building let out by the landlord to the tenant. It cannot be said therefore, that the article, "the" appearing in S.4(4)(b)(ii ) is referable to "any" building other than the building let out by the landlord to the tenant. Whereas Sub-Clause (3)(a) to Section 4 refers to .any non-residential building, Section 4(3)(b)(ii) refers to 'the' non-residential building. The use of the article 'the' in the Sub-Clause has a special significance. The market value for purpose of arriving at the total cost of the non-residential building in question shall consist of the market value of the site on which the non-residential building is constructed. The word 'building' and the word 'constructed' obviously refers to the building constructed by the landlord and not the superstructures to be constructed by the tenant after letting. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land on which the tenant has raised superstructures for his convenient enjoyment or otherwise ought also be reckoned and evaluated for purpose of fixing the total cost referred to in S.4(3)(a) of the Act". 13. In Sherwood Educational Society, Madras-31 v. Hussainy Begum Namazie and others, 1985 (1) MLJ 205 , His Lordship P.R.Gokulakrishnan, J. (as he then was) has held, following the case law cited above, as follows: "As regards the ground value to be fixed as per Section 4(4) of the Act 18 of 1960, the total area demised for occupation of the tenants is 25,464 Sqft of which the constructed portion by the landlord is 3854 Sqft. The tenant has constructed in about 2061 Sqft. Hence, the open ground left after such construction is 8 grounds and 1399 Sqft. It is not possible to take all the eight grounds and 1399 Sqft as an amenity for playground as per the first Schedule to Section 4. In the eight grounds and odd, four grounds and 1399 Sqft can be safely regarded as playground that comes under the amenities mentioned in. Schedule I to Section 4. The other four grounds along with 2061 Sqft on which the tenant has put up construction will have to be taken as appurtenant land to the main building". 14. It is an admitted fact that Ramaprasada Rao, J. has laid the principles as mentioned above in C.S.Rajavelan and others v. A.N.Parasurama Iyer, 1969 (83) LW 524 before the amendment of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. 14. It is an admitted fact that Ramaprasada Rao, J. has laid the principles as mentioned above in C.S.Rajavelan and others v. A.N.Parasurama Iyer, 1969 (83) LW 524 before the amendment of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. But P.R.Gokulakrishnan, J. has laid the above said principle of excluding the built-in area on which the building constructed by the tenant stands in the light of the decision of Ramaprasada Rao, J. and also the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This Court is in agreement with the principles laid down by the Honourable Judges referred to above in the cases cited above, and the said principles laid down by the said Honourable Judges will lead to conclude that the site on which the building was constructed by the tenant plus 50% of such site cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the land. But at the same time, this Court has to follow the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in H.Lodha v. Dr.C.Ranganathan and others, AIR 1989 Mad 225 wherein it was held that for the purpose of calculating the market value of the land, the site on which the structure stands and 50% of the site on which the said building stands have to be taken into consideration to arrive at the market value of the land. Admittedly, the Courts below have relied on the decisions referred to above in arriving at the market value of the land. 15. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the decision reported in Raja Ponnuthambi v. K.Augustine, AIR 1987 Mad. 97 . Admittedly, the case cited above also relates to fixation of fair rent. In the said decision, the learned single Judge has not followed the decisions reported in C.S.Rajavelan and others v. A.N.Parasurama Iyer, 1969 (83) LW 524 and Sherwood Educational Society, Madras-31 v. Hussainy Begum Namazie and others, 1985 (I) MLJ 205 , for the following reasons viz., the vacant site belongs to temple and the same was let out to the landlord with permission to construct building in the vacant site of the temple at the cost of the tenant. The tenant of vacant site of the temple constructed building and let out the same to his tenant. The tenant of vacant site of the temple constructed building and let out the same to his tenant. There was dispute between both with regard to fixation of fair rent in which the tenant of the main tenant of temple had taken a stand that the site on which the building stands should not at all be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing fair rent, since the main tenant is only a tenant of vacant site owned by the temple. In the above said circumstances, the learned Judge has not followed the cases cited by the respondent herein. In view of the said position, the ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners may not help to any extent to decide the issue in dispute. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in State of U.P. v. VII Additional District Judge, 1992 (4) SCC 429 and M/s Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. Govindas Purushothamdas and another, 2001 (2) CTC 52 : 2001 (3) SCC 24 have no relevancy to the issue in dispute and, therefore, the said decisions will not also help the revision petitioners in any respect. 16. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is in agreement with the concurrent findings of the Courts below in arriving at the market value of the land after deciding the area of site that is to be taken into consideration for deciding market value. It is relevant to point out that this Court is sitting in supervisory jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and has only limited powers to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. There is no illegality or impropriety or irregularity in deciding the disputes between the parties to the proceeding by the Courts below. Therefore, this Court concurs with the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below. As there is no error in fixing the fair rent at Rs.3,114 per month for the premises let out to the respondent by the father of the revision petitioners, the fair rent fixed by the Courts below concurrently has to be confirmed and accordingly, confirmed. 17. Therefore, this Court concurs with the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below. As there is no error in fixing the fair rent at Rs.3,114 per month for the premises let out to the respondent by the father of the revision petitioners, the fair rent fixed by the Courts below concurrently has to be confirmed and accordingly, confirmed. 17. In fine, the common judgment and decrees passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are confirmed and the civil revision petitions filed by the revision petitioners as well as by the respondent herein as revision petitioner are dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.