Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2861 (MAD)

S. Durai v. A. B. Dhanasekar

2010-07-14

G.RAJASURIA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority-VII Small Causes Judge, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.1336 of 2005 confirming the order dated 20.7.2005 passed by the XVI Small Causes Judge, Chennai, in RCOP No.1293 of 2003 in fixing the fair rent, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The long and short of the matter which is absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) The respondent herein filed the RCOP No.1293 of 2003 for fixation of fair rent in respect of the non-residential demised premises under the occupation of the revision petitioner/tenant. (ii) The original rent was Rs.750/- per month. The Rent Controller, after entertaining evidence and hearing both sides, fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.2,775/- per month. (iii) As against the said order the revision petitioner/tenant preferred the RCA.No.1336 of 2005 for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority, confirming the order of the Rent Controller. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the Courts below, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the nitty-gritty of the same would run thus: (i) Both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the actual market value of the land, but the Rent Controller imaginarily assessed the total value of the land at Rs.15 lakhs and accordingly worked out the value for the area of 420 sq.feet, which constitutes the relevant site for fixing the fair rent. (ii) In respect of the amenities also the landlords Engineers suggestions were simply adopted, even though there are no amenities available in the demised building. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/tenant prayed for setting aside the orders passed by both the Courts below and for dismissing the RCOP. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that there is no water supply at all to the demised premises and in such a case the landlords Engineers report is totally untenable and the lower Court was not justified in simply remarking that there was no evidence in that regard. The value of one ground i.e. 2400 sq. feet in the vicinity concerned, where the demised premises is situated, was not Rs.15 lakhs in the year 2003 as assessed by the Rent Controller. The value of one ground i.e. 2400 sq. feet in the vicinity concerned, where the demised premises is situated, was not Rs.15 lakhs in the year 2003 as assessed by the Rent Controller. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would advance his arguements, the warp and woof of them could pithily and precisely be set out thus: (i) The landlords Engineer taking into consideration the pros and cons of the entire factual circumstances involved in this case, assessed per ground of 2400 sq.ft. at Rupees twenty five lakhs. However, the Rent Controller in a highly justiciable manner reduced it to Rs.15 lakhs and over and above that the revisional Court cannot reduce the same, simply accepting the baseless contention of the revision petitioner/tenant. (ii) In fact, the Rent Controller virtually assessed the value of the site of 420 sq.feet relating to the demised premises only in a sum of Rs.1,31,250/- and it is quite unimaginable that in Oteri area, any one could purchase during the year 2003 a ground measuring 2400 sq.ft for a sum less than Rs.15 lakhs. (iii) The appellate Court, while considering the said fact observed correctly that the Rent Controller taking into account the locational facilities had arrived at the said sum of Rs.15 lakhs and both the Courts below clearly expressed their thoroughness in law by pointing out that the guideline value of the Revenue department should not be a criterion for assessing the value of the site. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revision. 7. The Engineers report furnished on the side of the landlord would clearly evince and evidence , express and demonstrate that the Engineer took into account the facts that the demised premises is located in a commercial-cum-residential area, i.e. in Konnur High Road, which is a two way main road that bus stop is also available there and that the demised premises is situated very near to the hospital, theatres etc. As such, considering all these facts, the Rent Controller assessed the value per ground in a sum of Rs.15 lakhs, without accepting the higher value of Rs.25 lakhs as suggested by the Engineer. Taking into consideration the preponderance of probabilities the Courts below assessed the value of site. 8. As such, considering all these facts, the Rent Controller assessed the value per ground in a sum of Rs.15 lakhs, without accepting the higher value of Rs.25 lakhs as suggested by the Engineer. Taking into consideration the preponderance of probabilities the Courts below assessed the value of site. 8. On the tenants side their Engineer suggested that the value per ground was Rs.6 lakhs and for that absolutely there is no justification. Hence in the absence of any other clinching evidence, the methodology adopted by the Engineer on the side of the landlord and the Rent Controller in accepting the view of the Engineer, in my considered opinion, need not be interfered with by the revisional Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. 9. At this juncture, I recollect and call up the following decisions, and certain excerpts from those decisions would run thus: i) 2000(I) MLJ 19 (SC) - Mudigonda Chandra Mouli Sastry vs. Bhimanepalli Bikshalu and others. "4. Coming to the second submission what we find is that, that the Rent Controller and the first appellate authority after assessing the evidence recorded concurrent finding of facts that the need of the landlord was bona fide. It was not pointed out that the said finding suffered from any legal infirmity. Under such circumstances, it was also not open to the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to have indulged in reassessment of evidence and thereby interfered with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two courts below, especially when it was found by the High Court that the tenants wife had already acquired a vacant accommodation in the town of Tenali and the tenant himself was transferred from Tenali to Marcherly ..." ii) 1997(II) CTC 631 (M.Mohamed Meera Sha, Partner, Goldern Oils vs. E.Hyder Ali) "11. ....... Sitting in revision, as held in the decision in Smt.Rajbir Kaur and another v. M/s.S.Chokosiri and Co., AIR 1988 SC 1845 , this court cannot interfere with the findings of fact unless there is perversity in the appreciation of evidence. ....... Sitting in revision, as held in the decision in Smt.Rajbir Kaur and another v. M/s.S.Chokosiri and Co., AIR 1988 SC 1845 , this court cannot interfere with the findings of fact unless there is perversity in the appreciation of evidence. To come to such conclusion, I take aid of the Apex court decision of Smt.Rajbir Kaur and another v. M/s.S.Chokosiri and Co., AIR 1988 SC 1845 stated which reads as follows: "When the findings fact recorded by the courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and to support a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the courts below. Therefore, in the instant case the concurrent finding as to exclusive possession of subtenant was not amenable to reversal in revision by the High Court." 12. In the decision in Dev Kumar (Died) through Lrs.v. Swaran Lata Smt.) and others, 1996(1) SCC 25 it is held as follows: "The jurisdiction of the High Court under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, would entitle the court to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate Authority and is thus much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to the well-known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. Unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority or unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come to the High Court will not interfere with the same". (iii) 2001(3) CTC 206 ( Karur Ghee Stores rep.by V.Periasamy vs. N.Palaniappan and another) "10. ................................ In this case, both the authorities have considered in detail all these aspects and have ordered eviction. Above all, one also has to see the extent to which this court can interfere under Section 25 of the Act. (iii) 2001(3) CTC 206 ( Karur Ghee Stores rep.by V.Periasamy vs. N.Palaniappan and another) "10. ................................ In this case, both the authorities have considered in detail all these aspects and have ordered eviction. Above all, one also has to see the extent to which this court can interfere under Section 25 of the Act. It has been repeatedly held the revisional jurisdiction is not akin to a full-fledged appeal and the Judge sitting in revision must be very careful about launching on a independent re-appreciation of the evidence and to substitute the findings of the Rent Control Authorities with another when the materials before the Court equally sustain the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below. Unless there is misapplication of law or a legally wrong approach or grave and substantial injustice, the Revisional Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Rent Controller ....................." 10. A mere poring over and perusal of those decisions would amply make the point clear that as against the concurrent findings given by both the courts below, the revisional court without any valid ground should not simply upset those findings of facts. 11. In this case, for arriving at a sum of Rs.15 lakhs per ground, the Rent Controller placed reliance on the landlords Engineers report, which be-speaks about the locational facilities and by comparing the guideline value and the value taken by the Rent Controller for assessment of the site if the matter is viewed I could see no irregularity or illegality or perversity involved in arriving at such a finding by the lower Court. 12. Regarding the amenities are concerned, the learned counsel for the tenant would submit that there is no water supply to the demised premises. 13. I would like to point out that the tenant is always having the right to insist for water supply and other basic amenities and for that he is at liberty to file even a RCOP also. For arguement sake, if it is taken that at the time of inspection of the building there was no water supply, then it does not mean that there would be no water supply at all to the demised premises. 14. Whereas, the Engineer on the side of the landlord took into account the objective facts and suggested as to what should be the value of the amenities. 14. Whereas, the Engineer on the side of the landlord took into account the objective facts and suggested as to what should be the value of the amenities. The Rent Controller, even though in respect of non-residential building could award a sum equal to 25% of the cost of the site on which the building is constructed, and the cost of construction of the building as determined under this Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, yet he awarded only 15% of the said cost. In such a case I could see no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below. 15. Even applying the common sense principle, if the matter is viewed, it is clear that the respondent is doing commercial business i.e. fabrication business in an extent of 420 sq.feet in the ground floor of a two storied building and as such, directing him to pay a rent of Rs.2,775/- p.m. since 2003 cannot not be dubbed or labelled as the one on the higher side even by any phantasmagorical thoughts. 16. The learned counsel for the tenant would make an extempore submission to the effect that without prejudice to his contention, the tenant deposited totally a sum of Rs.73,500/-(Rupees seventy three thousand five hundred) and that includes even the arrears relating to the disputed period, so to say, the alleged arrears accrued anterior to the filing of the RCOP and according to him, the amount representing the arrears for the disputed period should not be allowed to be withdrawn by the landlord. 17. I could see considerable force in his submission and accordingly, while ordering payment out in favour of the landlord, the lower Court should take into consideration the said fact. 18. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.