Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4791 (MAD)

Rabiya Basheer Ali v. C. Devendra Prasad

2010-10-29

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The Tenant in R.C.O.P. No.509 of 2009, on the file of the XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The Landlord/Respondent filed the above Petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, for fixation of fair rent and also filed a Petition in M.P.No.112 of 2009, for permitting the Landlord/Respondent to inspect the premises with the help of a qualified Civil Engineer, so as to fix the fair rent and that Application was dismissed. As against that, the Landlord/Respondent filed an Appeal in R.C.A. No.401 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, and the Appellate Authority, allowed the Appeal and permitted that Landlord/Respondent to measure the petition premises with the help of the qualified Civil Engineer, on condition that any date for two hours, by giving one week prior notice to the Tenant. 3. It is submitted by Mr. K. Sridhar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner that as per the Supplemental Agreement, there is no need for the Tenant to pay rent and therefore, the Lower Court, ought not to have permitted the Landlord/Respondent to inspect the petition premises with the help of the qualified Civil Engineer. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Insmdar Ameenur Rahman, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that even in the reply notice, the Tenant has admitted that he is liable to pay the rent and that was adjusted towards the maintenance charges and the payment made to the Corporation. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Supplemental Agreement cannot be looked into as it is not a registered document. 5. Mr. Sridhar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Tenant would file appropriate Application about the maintainability of the Petition for fair rent before the Lower Court and Supplemental Agreement has already been marked before the Court in R.C.O.P.No.508 of 2009. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the Landlord has also admitted the said Supplemental Agreement. Nevertheless, the learned Counsel submitted that the rent is not payable by him and therefore, there is no need to fix the rent. 6. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the Landlord has also admitted the said Supplemental Agreement. Nevertheless, the learned Counsel submitted that the rent is not payable by him and therefore, there is no need to fix the rent. 6. According to me, this Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, in granting permission to the Landlord/Respondent to inspect the property with the help of the qualified Civil Engineer, after giving prior notice. Whether the property Landlord/Respondent is entitled to file the Petition for fixing the fair rent or not can be decided by the Lower Court, when appropriate Application is filed to that effect. As on date, the Landlord/Respondent has filed the Application for fixation of fair rent and to fix the fair rent, particulars of the property has to be ascertained. For that, purpose, the inspection of the property by a qualified Civil Engineer is necessary. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Lower Court, in permitting the Landlord/Respondent to inspect the property with the help of the qualified Engineer, after giving notice to the Tenant, as stated by the Lower Court. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. However, it is open to the Tenant to file appropriate Application before the Lower Court about the maintainability of the Petition.