Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2496 (MAD)

B. Sunitha Devi v. Aruna R. Sayani

2013-07-17

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner in both these revision petitions. She is aggrieved against the fixation of fair rent by the court below. The respondent is the landlady. 2. R.C.O.P.No.1959 of 1999 was filed by the respondent/landlady under section 4 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by Tamilnadu Act 18 of 1973, seeking for fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs.17,443/- per month to the petition mentioned property. 3. According to the landlady, the contractual rent payable by the tenant is Rs.4,200/-p.m.. The property let out is having a built up area 1190 sq.ft. The learned Rent Controller after considering the rival pleadings and submissions made on behalf of the parties, fixed Rs.6,018/- as the fair rent, through his order dated 16.08.2002. 4. Both the tenant and the landlady filed appeals in R.C.A.Nos.800 and 819 of 2002 respectively, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Small Causes Court), Chennai. The Appellate Authority after considering all the facts and circumstances and also taking note of the report of the Commissioner modified the order of the learned Rent Controller and fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.7,860/- per month. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the landlady was allowed. Thus, the tenant is there before this Court challenging the common order passed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Mr.S.D.S.Philip, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority was not correct in fixing the fair rent, as the calculation with regard to the extent of appurtenant land was not properly done by the Advocate Commissioner. His only grievance is that the Commissioner has only taken into consideration of the land within which building was constructed and not the remaining extent of the vacant land available within the premises. But, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would show that a fresh Commissioner was appointed at the appellate stage and he submitted a detail report with plan. It is also noted by the Appellate Court that the petition building is a flat consisting of ground and three floors and the petition mentioned properties located in the second floor. It is also noted by the Appellate Court that the petition building is a flat consisting of ground and three floors and the petition mentioned properties located in the second floor. The Commissioner also enclosed the Engineer's report wherein it is stated about the area details as follows: "Total extent of the site =3 grounds @ 7200 sq.ft. No. of floor Ground + 3 floors totally 4 floors (Note:Large extent of Appurtenant land is available in the premises more than the plinth area) Plinth area of the flat (Petition portion) 1190 Sq.ft. Apportioned site area 1190/4 298 Sq.ft. Add 50% of area 0.50X298 149 Sq.ft. Land area for valuation 298+149 447 Sq.ft." 7. Thus, by taking note of the said details furnished by the Engineer which has been enclosed with the Commissioner's report, the court below has fixed the extent of land as 447 sq.ft. I find that the procedure adopted by the court below does not show any infirmity, more particularly, when it has only followed the report filed by the Commissioner enclosing the report given by the Engineer. Nothing is placed on record to show that the said report was challenged by the tenant. W hen that being the factual position, I find that the order passed by the Appellate Authority in fixing the fair rent as Rs.7,860/- p.m. in respect of a property having a built up area 1190 sq.ft. does not warrant any interference by this court. Accordingly, I find no merits in these civil revision petitions. Consequently, the same are dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tenant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,96,941/-to the credit of R.C.A.No.819 of 2002. The respondent/landlady is permitted to withdraw the said amount by filing appropriate application before the court below. The balance amount payable by the tenant shall be paid to the landlady directly within a period of three months from today.