Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2814 (MAD)

A. Saravanan v. Nalllaiya Asari

2010-07-12

G.RAJASURIA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority-Principal Sub Judge, Salem, in R.C.A.No.7 of 2003 confirming the order dated 20.11.2002 passed by the Rent Controller-I Additional District Munsif, Salem, in R.C.O.P.No.22 of 1995, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The respondent/landlord filed the RCOP.No.22 of 1995 for fixation of fair rent in respect of a non residential building. Whereupon counter was filed. (ii) Before the lower Court, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 along with one E.T.Viswanath as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. On the side of tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R2.1 and R2. Exs.C1 to C3 were marked as Court documents. (iii) Ultimately, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.1288/-. (iv) As against the said order, the tenant preferred appeal, but the appellate Court confirmed the rent fixed by the Rent Controller. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the Courts below this revision is filed on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: (i) Quite antithetical to the Full Bench decision of this Court, which would mandate that the Rent Controller was not expected to place reliance on the guideline value prepared by the Revenue Department for valuing the ground, in the process of fixing the fair rent under the Tamil Nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, the Rent Controller in this case placed reliance on the guideline value prepared by the Revenue Department in assessing the ground value. As such on that ground itself, the orders of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. (ii) The P.W.D.s guidelines should have been taken for assessing he value of the building and there is nothing to indicate and exemplify that such value was taken into consideration. (iii) In fact, the Engineer in his evidence orally stated that he adhered to the P.W.D. guidelines for assessing the value of the building, but no report or certificate issued by the Engineer was got marked. As such, non filing and marking of the said document is fatal to the case of the landlord. 5. (iii) In fact, the Engineer in his evidence orally stated that he adhered to the P.W.D. guidelines for assessing the value of the building, but no report or certificate issued by the Engineer was got marked. As such, non filing and marking of the said document is fatal to the case of the landlord. 5. Reiterating the grounds of revision set out supra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would pray for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below and for dismissing the RCOP. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/landlord would put forth and set forth her arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus: (i) The law as it stood on the date of the Rent Controller deciding the lis was one to the effect that the guideline value of the Revenue Department could be taken as the criterion for assessing the value of the ground. The judgment reported in 1995 TLNJ 226 – N.SULAIMAN V. R.RAVICHANDRAN was holding the field and in such a case it is too late in the day on the part of the tenant to press into service the Full Bench decision of this Court, which emerged subsequently. (ii) In fact, the deposition of the Engineer would amply make the point clear that he assisted the Advocate Commissioner and he also visited the premises along with the Advocate Commissioner and the Engineers certificate also is found enclosed in the typed set of papers and those are all constituting part and parcel of the record. (iii) Mere non-marking of such certificate or valuation report would not be fatal to the case of the landlord. Accordingly, the learned Senior counsel prays for dismissal of the revision. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Rent Controller was justified in placing reliance on the guideline value of the Revenue Department in assessing the value of the ground portion involved and whether non-marking of the relevant particulars relating to P.W.Ds guidelines for assessing the building is fatal to the case of the landlord? 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant appropriately and appositely cited the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2006(2) CTC 433 – SAKTHI & Co., VS. SHREE DESIGACHARY, certain excerpts from it would run thus: "12. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant appropriately and appositely cited the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2006(2) CTC 433 – SAKTHI & Co., VS. SHREE DESIGACHARY, certain excerpts from it would run thus: "12. We have gone through the above judgments, cited by the counsel for the parties. 13. At the outset, it shall be stated that the guideline value, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, is a value determined for the purpose of collecting stamp duty. The Basic Valuation Register is maintained by the revenue authorities, on the basis of the notification issued by the Government under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The same is meant to be a guide for collection of revenue and the stamp duty. It is mainly for collection of stamp duty for restoration of an instrument. The Notification under Section 47-A, which is meant to be a guide for collection of revenue, cannot form basis for determination of the market value. The Government fixes the value, as indicated above, only for the purpose of stamp duty i.e. for the purpose of its revenue. The value is fixed for the locality and not for a particular survey number. The market value for a particular survey number is the result of a bargain between the parties. On the other hand, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the market value is the value, as described in the sale deed. 14. The methods of valuation for ascertaing the market value, as suggested i the above decisions, are as follows: (1) Opinion of experts. (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages. Evidence of bona fide 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 market value. (3) A number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. 15. It is a settled law, as laid down in the judgments referred to above, that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case. 15. It is a settled law, as laid down in the judgments referred to above, that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case. According to the Supreme Court, generally, the second method of valuation is accepted, as the best. This method would furnish the evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features, which would enable the Ciourth to determine the market value correctly. 16. In view of the above radio decided fixed by the Supreme Court, the fixation of market value on the basis of guideline value or valuation register, summoned from Sub-Registrars Office and the Engineer, is illegal and unsustainable. 17. The view expressed by Justice S.S. Subramani, in our view, is correct, as it is consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The other view expressed by Justice Srinivasan is not correct, as the methods suggested by the Supreme Court for fixing the market value would not include the consideration of guideline value and valuation register. So, in our opinion, the said view is wrong. 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 form a foundation to determine the market value mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration. (2) Evidence of bona fide 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 and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 19. (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 and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 19. In view of the above settled position of law and conclusion, both the counsel for the parties would now agree for setting aside the orders impugned and for remanding the matter for fixing the fair rent in respect of the property during the relevant point of time to following the methods as mentioned above, after allowing the parties to adduce evidence." 9. A mere poring over and perusal of the above excerpts, including the whole judgment, would amply make the point clear that the proper course open for the Rent Controller is to place reliance on the relevant sale deeds, which emerged in the vicinity concerned at the relevant time of the RCOP being filed, for fixation of fair rent and not mere guideline value of the Revenue Department. In view of this categorical Full Bench decision, I am of the view that the order of the Rent Controller and the order of the appellate authority, confirming the decision of the Rent Controller are having no legs to stand. 10. The contention on the side of the landlord that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority correctly applied the law as it stood as on the date of the respective orders is neither here nor there. Once the Full Bench of this Court decided as to what is the proper course for the Rent Controller to adopt in assessing the value of the land, then that should be get reflected in the orders, but that was not the approach of the Rent Controller or the appellate authority and hence, in such a case, on this count itself, the matter has to be necessarily remitted back to the Rent Controller for re-assessing the ground value in accordance with the mandates contained in the Full Bench decision of this Court. 11. 11. The contention on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant that the P.W.D rate for constructing the building was not taken into account, in my opinion fails to carry conviction of this Court for the reason that the very Engineer himself elaborated on that point and he explained that he in fact adhered to it. A fortiori the assessment of the superstructure does not fall foul of any violation of the norms. 12. Trite the proposition of law is that summary proceedings are contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and marking or non-marking of a document would not be material and by that I do not even for a moment lay down as a law that in all rent control proceedings non-marking is immaterial, but, if out of over sight any document is failed to be marked, then that itself may not be fatal to the case of the party concerned. One should not try to make a mountain out of mole hill. In this case it is clear from the report of the Engineer that he only assisted the Advocate Commissioner and he also orally deposed before the Court concerning the factum of he having adopted the P.W.D rate in assessing the value of the building and in such a case I am of the view that non-marking of the relevant P.W.D. guidelines for assessment of building was not fatal to the assessment of value of the building by the Rent Controller. 13. In the result, I am of the considered view that the matter has to be remitted back to the Rent Controller, after setting aside the orders of both the Courts below, with a direction that the Rent Controller shall take further evidence incommensurate with the mandates as contained in the Full Bench judgment of this Court cited supra for assessing the value of the ground portion, over which the demised building i.e. the superstructure is situated and consequently, the fixation shall be arrived at by adopting the formula as found envisaged in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Accordingly, the order is passed. 14. Accordingly, the order is passed. 14. Since the matter is of the year 1995, both sides shall co-operate with the Court in adducing further evidence and the Rent Controller shall do well to see that the matter is disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.