Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2403 (MAD)

S. Jayavel v. Thamaraikani

2006-09-13

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Prayer: These Civil Revision Petition are filed against the order dated 23.12.2004 made in R.C.A.No.21 & 420 of 2002 respectively, on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras (Rent Control Appellate Authority), modifying the order dated 15.10.2001 passed in R.C.O.P.No.2352 of 1998 on the file of the XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras (Rent Controller).) R.C.O.P.No.2352 of 1998 was filed by the landlord to fix the fair rent by enhancing the same from Rs.125/ to Rs.3,357/-. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller, but the fair rent was fixed as Rs.1,280/- per month. Against the said order, RCA.No.21/2002 was preferred by the landlord contending that the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller is far below and the tenant has preferred RCA.No.420/2002 for reduction of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. Both RCAs were taken up together by the first Appellate authority and a common order was passed by the first Appellate Authority on 23.12.2004. Against the said common order, these revision petitions have been filed by the tenant. 2. A perusal of the order passed by the first Appellate authority will go to show that after satisfying that the Rent Controller has fixed the value of the property on the basis of the documents of the year 1998-1999 and also after considering the guide line value, the learned first Appellate authority has held that the Rent Controller has correctly fixed the value of the property as Rs.15,00,000/-. There was no document produced before the first Appellate authority to show that the land value will fetch more than Rs.15,00,000/- during the relevant period. The appellate authority after fixing the value of the land, calculated the cost of construction as Rs.47,460/- and after allowing depreciation, has arrived at the fair rent as Rs.1,423/- per month, since the building was used for residential purpose. So, the first Appellate authority has raised the rent fixed by the Rent Controller from Rs.1,280/- to Rs.1,423/- per month. Against, this the landlord has no grievance. 3. The revision petitioner/tenant must show that the calculation arrived at by the first Appellant authority is wrong as to enable this Court to interfere with the order of the first appellate authority. So, the first Appellate authority has raised the rent fixed by the Rent Controller from Rs.1,280/- to Rs.1,423/- per month. Against, this the landlord has no grievance. 3. The revision petitioner/tenant must show that the calculation arrived at by the first Appellant authority is wrong as to enable this Court to interfere with the order of the first appellate authority. After going through the documentary evidence and after considering the orders of the learned Rent Controller, first appellate authority has correctly fixed the monthly rent for the suit building as Rs.1,423/- after following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order passed in RCA.No.21 & 420 of 2002 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras (Rent Control Appellate Authority). There is no merit in these Civil Revision petitions. 4. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. The revision petitioner/tenant is granted two months time to pay the arrears of rent. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.