Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1626 (MAD)

Perumal Naidu & Another v. T. V. Badrinath

2007-06-06

S.RAJESWARAN

body2007
Judgment :- These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 11. 2002, in R.C.A.Nos.6 and 8 of 2002 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddalore) against the order dated 14. 2002 in RCOP No.10/1999, on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Cuddalore, respectively. 2. The tenant is the petitioner in both the revision petitions. He is aggrieved by the common order of the rent control appellate authority dated 11. 2002 made in RCA Nos.6/2002 and 8/2002. 3. The respondent herein filed RCOP No.10/1999 under Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act, for fixing the fair rent for the petition schedule property at Rs.2,000/-per month. In his petition the respondent herein stated that the original tenant Perumal Naidu was paying only Rs.50/- per month for the petition premises wherein he was doing a jewellery business and the property is located in a very valuable place where a number of jewellery shops are doing good business and similarly located shops are fetching a monthly income of Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore the respondent prayed to fix the fair rent at Rs.2,000/-per month. 4. The original tenant resisted the fair rent petition by contending that the monthly rent of Rs.50/- itself is the fair rent and he is not doing any jewellery business in the petition premises but was doing only jewellery repair work. The rent controller after going through the evidence, fixed a sum of Rs.1,000/-per month for the petition premises and aggrieved by the same the tenant filed RCA No.6/2002 and the landlord filed RCA No.8/2002 . The appellate authority increased the fair rent fixed by the rent controller from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,675/- per month in RCA No.8/2002 by allowing it partly and dismissed RCA No.6/2002 filed by the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant alone has filed both the above revision petitions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions. 6. During the pendency of the revision petitions the original tenant/1st revision petitioner passed away and his daughter was brought on record as his Legal Representative by order dated 10. 2005. 7. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions. 6. During the pendency of the revision petitions the original tenant/1st revision petitioner passed away and his daughter was brought on record as his Legal Representative by order dated 10. 2005. 7. It is not in dispute and in fact admitted by both the parties that the petition premises is situated in the centre of the town. But the extent of the property was stated as 140 sq.ft., by the landlord and 117 sq.ft., by the tenant. After going through the municipality tax receipt and the report of the court appointed commissioner, the rent controller found that the claim of the landlord was correct and the extent is 140 sq.ft., and not 117 sq.ft. The value of the building was arrived at as per the valuation of the P.W.D.Engineer and the value of the land was valued at Rs.61,426/-by the Advocate Commissioner on the basis of the guideline value fixed by the Sub-Registrar office. Based on this guideline value the advocate-commissioner arrived at the fair rent at Rs.898/-per month and the rent controller arrived at Rs.1,000/- per month. 8. The appellate authority, concurred with the findings of the rent controller in all other aspects except the value of the land fixed by the rent controller at Rs.61,466/-on the basis of the guideline value. The appellate authority relied on the evidence of P.W.2, who is doing real estate business, who deposed that similarly situated shops in the same locality are fetching a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month. Accordingly the appellate authority fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,22,851.64 and fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,675/- per month. 9. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the appellate authority warranting interference by this court. The rent controller has wrongly fixed the value of the land by relying on the guideline value which is not correct as per the Full Bench decision of this court reported in 2006(2) CTC 433 (Sakthi & Co. vs. Sri Desigachari). Therefore the appellate authority has correctly disregarded the guideline value and considered the location of the shop and the evidence of P.W.2, a real estate businessman and arrived at the land value, which cannot be found fault with. vs. Sri Desigachari). Therefore the appellate authority has correctly disregarded the guideline value and considered the location of the shop and the evidence of P.W.2, a real estate businessman and arrived at the land value, which cannot be found fault with. Therefore I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the appellate authority in fixing the fair rent at Rs.1,675/-per month to the petition premises. 10. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions re dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.7809/2003 is also dismissed.