Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3242 (MAD)

Parijatham Ammal [Died] v. M. Arumugham Mudaliar

2006-11-28

R.BANUMATHI

body2006
Judgment :- (Prayer: Revision filed against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority [Subordinate Judge], Kancheepuram dated 10.04.2001 in R.C.A.No.21/1991 confirming the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.1991 passed in RCOP No.12/1986 by the Rent Controller [Principal District Munsif Court], Kancheepuram.) This revision is preferred against the concurrent findings of Rent Controller, fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.3,200 p.m. from the date of Petition in RCOP No.12/1986. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1. The demised premises relates to a commercial building No.224 A and B, Gandhi Road, Kanchipuram, situated in an important locality. The premises measures 15'x77' and the constructed area is also the same. Construction portion of the first floor is 15'x77' and constructed area of the second floor is 16'x15' i.e. 240 sq.ft. Tenancy was from 01.07.1980. The contractual rate of rent was Rs.700/- p.m. and Rs.500/- p.m. towards amenities. 2.2. Claiming fair rent of Rs.4,300/- p.m., the Respondent/landlord filed a Petition under Section 4(1) & (3) of the Tamil Nadu Building [Lease & Rent Control] Act, [in short, the Act]. On the side of the landlord, the landlord was examined as PW-1 and a private Engineer was examined as PW-2. PWD Engineer was examined as PW-3. Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. Ex.P-3 Sale Deed was filed to show the market value of the site. In consideration of the evidence and referring to the locality in which the demised premises is situated, the Rent Controller fixed the value of the building at Rs.2,32,887/-. The site value was fixed at Rs.82,095/- and the total value was fixed at Rs.3,14,982/-. Calculating 12% of the same, the Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.3,200/-, fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 3. Challenging the concurrent findings, the Tenant has filed this Revision Petition. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners has raised the following three fold contentions:- (i)that Tenant has vacated the premises even on 20.11.1997 and hence, they are not liable to pay the difference in the amount; (ii)the Court has erred in fixing the market value of the site upon Ex.P-3 - Sale Deed and no person was examined regarding the sale consideration stated in Ex.P-3 - Sale Deed. Fixing of the market value on the basis of Ex.P-3 is purely on the surmises of the Rent Controller and not in consonance with S.4 of the Act; (iii)PWD Engineer has fixed the value of the building, arrived at by him as on 01.04.1990 and the same ought not to have been taken as the basis for the year 1986. 4. In so far as the first contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that the Tenant is not liable to pay the difference in rent, since they have vacated the premises on 20.11.1997, has no merits. The Rent Controller has fixed the fair rent of Rs.3,200/- payable from the date of Rent Control Petition i.e. 15.02.1986. It is quite obvious that the Tenant Company has vacated nearly 11 years after the filing of the Petition. The contention of the Tenants that they has vacated the premises and is not liable to pay the difference in the fair rent is to be rejected. VALUE OF THE BUILIDING:- 5. As noted earlier, the ground floor constructed area is 15'x77'; first floor is 15'x77' and the constructed area of second floor is 16'x15'. Total constructed area is 2,560 sq.ft. Indisputedly, the demised premise is situated in an important locality in Kanchipuram. The premise is in important commercial locality. The premise is surrounded by Theatre, Bank, Schools and Hospitals. It is also very near to Bus Stop and the Railway Station. For estimating the value of the building PW-2 - Private Engineer was examined. PW-2 has fixed the sq.ft. market value of the building at Rs.1,100/-. PW-3 – PWD Engineer was directed by the Court to assess the value of the building, who has submitted his Report and Plan - Exs.P-4 and P-5. PW-3 - PWD Engineer has fixed sq.mt. value at Rs.1,035/-. After calculating depreciation, PW-3 has estimated the value of the building at Rs.2,18,659/-, as on 1.4.1990. 6. The Tenant himself filed Ex.R-1 an estimate by PWD for the year 1986-87 fixing the value of constructed area at Rs.740 per sq.ft. for the ground floor; for the first and second floor Rs.680 per sq.ft. Though PW-2 - Private Engineer and PW-3 – PWD Engineer have fixed different value per sq.ft., the Rent Controller has taken Ex.R-1 as the basis for arriving at the value of the building [vide calculation in the Order in RCOP No.12/1986]. for the ground floor; for the first and second floor Rs.680 per sq.ft. Though PW-2 - Private Engineer and PW-3 – PWD Engineer have fixed different value per sq.ft., the Rent Controller has taken Ex.R-1 as the basis for arriving at the value of the building [vide calculation in the Order in RCOP No.12/1986]. For amenities 22½ % was added and for other factors 30% was added to the value of the building. Since the building was 18 years old, the learned Rent Controller has rightly calculated depreciation and thereupon, fixed the value of the building at Rs.2,32,887/-. 7. Assailing the value of the building, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended that the value fixed by the Engineer as well as the Court, taking into consideration value of the building for the year 1990 is erroneous and when they ought to have taken into consideration the value that should be arrived at as of the year 1986. Therefore, it is contended that value of the building fixed by the Rent Controller is not in accordance with S.4 and the Rules of the Act. 8. The above contention of the Tenant has no merits. For calculating the value of the building, though expert evidence was adduced by way of examining P.W.s 2 and 3, the Rent Controller has mainly placed reliance upon Ex.R-1, the value of the building during 1986-87, which the Tenant himself has produced. As noted earlier, the value of the building has been calculated only on the basis of the sq.ft. value for the ground floor, first floor and second floor, as shown in Ex.R-1. Thereafter, the amenities and other factors were added. There is no force in the contention that the value of the building has been fixed on the basis of report of PWD Engineer who has fixed the value of the building as on 01.04.l990 and that there is no application of mind. It is not as if the learned Rent Controller was simply swayed by the report of PWD Engineer – Ex.P-1. I find that there is proper application of mind to the materials on record and the Rent Controller has arrived at an independent finding, unwayed by the value fixed by two different engineers. 9. In 1991 (1) LW 94 [Miss Liza Arulanandam Vs. I find that there is proper application of mind to the materials on record and the Rent Controller has arrived at an independent finding, unwayed by the value fixed by two different engineers. 9. In 1991 (1) LW 94 [Miss Liza Arulanandam Vs. A.S.Sulochana], it was held that the expression "cost of the building" includes not only the expenses incurred for constructing the building but also the value of advantages which the site of the building offers such as accessibility to markets, nearness to railway station, special amenities and features of architectural interest. In the present case also, along with cost of construction amenities and accessibility to Bus stop, importance of location had been rightly taken into account by the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. MARKET VALUE OF THE site :- 10. To enable the Court to arrive at the market value of the site, Ex.P-3 Sale Deed of the nearby site was produced by the landlord. Ex.P-3 is a Sale Deed for the site measuring 22'x15', wherein the sale consideration was Rs.45,000/-. Referring to Ex.P-3 and the measurements of the site covered under it, learned Rent Controller calculated that the value of the site per sq.ft. would be Rs.90/-. On that basis, found that the value of the suit in the demised premises, which is 15'x77', would be Rs.1,04,000/-. Since the landlord has estimated the market value of the site on Rs.82,095/-, the learned Rent Controller has taken that value given by the landlord. 11. Referring to Ex.P-3 - Sale Deed and calculating the sq.ft. value of Rs.90/-, and on that basis arriving at the market value of the site is very much attacked by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners contending that the Court was not justified in arriving at its own conclusion. It was further submitted that when neither willing purchaser nor the vendor under Ex.P-3 was examined, the calculation of the market value is purely based on surmises of the Courts below. The learned Counsel for the Tenants further submitted that the market value of the site has been erroneously fixed by the Rent Controller, confirmed by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the guideline value adopted by the registering authorities, which is stated in the Sale Deed. The learned Counsel for the Tenants further submitted that the market value of the site has been erroneously fixed by the Rent Controller, confirmed by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the guideline value adopted by the registering authorities, which is stated in the Sale Deed. It was further submitted that the guideline value and the sale consideration in Ex.P-3 could only be for the purpose of calculating the stamp duty of documents and it cannot be considered to be the market vale of the property in question. 12. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision reported in 2006 (6) CTC 433 [Sakthi & Co., through its Partner Vs. Shree Desigachary]. Referring to various decisions, the Bench arrived at the following conclusion :- "18. Therefore, our conclusions are as follows : (1)The guideline value, contained in the Basic Valuation Register, maintained by the Revenue Department or the Municipality for the purpose of collecting stamp duty, has no statutory base or force. It cannot forma foundation to determine the market value mentioned there under in instrument brought for registration. (2) Evidence of bonafide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine the market value. In this case, the guideline value alone has been considered, which, in our view, is illegal. (3) The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in the present case, are not right in relying upon the guideline value, maintained by the Revenue Department, for arriving at a fair rent, to be fixed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease & Rent Control] Act, 1960." 13. In the present case, the above conclusions would apply only if guideline value alone was taken into consideration for calculating the market value. In the present case, Ex.P-3 - Sale Deed has been produced evidencing bonafide sales. Hence the present case might fall under category (2) of the above said conclusions of the Full Bench. Hence it cannot be contended that the Rent Controller has erroneously calculated the market value of the site in reference to Ex.P-3. In fact, by referring to Ex.P-3, the Court has calculated the market value of the site at Rs.1,04,000/- [Rs.90/- per sq.ft.]. Hence it cannot be contended that the Rent Controller has erroneously calculated the market value of the site in reference to Ex.P-3. In fact, by referring to Ex.P-3, the Court has calculated the market value of the site at Rs.1,04,000/- [Rs.90/- per sq.ft.]. However, the Court has adopted a reasonable value of Rs.82,095/-, the value of the site stated by the landlord himself. The learned Rent Controller has rightly fixed the market value of the site at Rs.3,14,982/-. 14. None of the points urged by the Revision Petitioners /Tenants have any force. When the Courts below on concurrent finding fixed the fair rent at Rs.3,200/-, the same cannot be unfixed. There is nothing to show that the finding of the Courts below are erroneous or perverse, calling for interference, exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. It is unfortunate that the Tenant, which is a well known marketing company, has fought out the litigation with the landlord for more than a decade. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority [Subordinate Judge], Kancheepuram dated 10.04.2001 in R.C.A.No.21/1991, confirming the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.1991, passed in R.C.O.P.No.12/1986, by the Rent Controller [Principal District Munsif Court], Kancheepuram, is confirmed and this Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of the Respondent. Consequently, CMP No.4561 of 2002 is also dismissed.