Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 466 (MAD)

M. S. Thiyagarajan v. A. Ansari Ali

2013-01-22

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard both. The germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The landlord filed an application under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (“Act” in short) for fixation of fair rent before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli and it was resisted by the tenant. Whereupon, a Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report. 2. Up went the enquiry, during which on the side of the landlord, he examined himself as P.W.1 and one Ravindran, Engineer was examined as P.W.2 and documents Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and no document was marked. Exs.C1 to C6 were marked as Court exhibits. 3. Ultimately, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the order of the Rent Controller. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the fora below, the tenant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would submit that the Lower Court simply accepted the Engineer's Report for gospel truth and fixed the fair rent warranting interference in revision. The land value was assessed based on the guideline value which is not contemplated in law. The age of the building was taken as 32, whereas the age of the building was more than 88 years' old. Without considering all these salient features, simply the Lower Court fixed the fair rent placing reliance on the Commissioner's Report, and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. 6. The learned counsel for the tenant would also submit that in the sale deed of the vendor of the respondent herein (present landlord), the value of the building was fixed at Rs.9,940/- whereas the Engineer went to the extent of fixing the value of the building in a sum of Rs.56,425/- and as such, despite all these pitfalls in the Commissioner's Report, both the fora below simply overlooked all these defects and fixed the fair rent illegally in a sum of Rs.1,000/-. 7. 7. Whereas, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would pyramind his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The Engineer's Report is reasonable as the reasonableness could be and he valued the entire plot area in a sum of Rs.1,45,967/-which is far below the value specified in the certified copy of the landlord's sale deed dated 28.12.1998, marked as Ex.P1, whereas, the landlord's vendor's sale deed, a copy of which found enclosed in the typed set of papers, would refer to the value of the plot area in a sum of Rs.1,44,060/-. The Engineer took up the value of the plot area in a sum of Rs.1,45,967/- which even by phantasmagorical thoughts cannot be described as the one on the higher side. Even though the value of the building was mentioned in a sum of Rs.9,940/- therein, yet the Public Works Department's rate relating to the building has to be taken note of for the purpose of fixing the fair rent under the Act. The Lower Court and the appellate Court correctly fixed the fair rent warranting no interference in the revision. 8. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the Rent Controller was justified in accepting the Engineer's Report or not, in fixing the fair rent? And 2) Whether there is any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Lower Court? 9. A mere running of the eye over the Engineer's Report and also the relevant records would exemplify and demonstrate that the Engineer took into account the entire plot area over which the building is situated, wherein the demised premises forms a part. 10. At the outset, I would like to point out that the demised premises involved in this case, forms a part of the building situated in the larger plot area belonging to the landlord who purchased the plot and building as per Ex.P1 during the year 1998. In the said deed, the entire land value is mentioned as Rs.1,52,460/-whereas the Engineer had taken only the land value as Rs.1,45,967/-(Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven only). As such by no stretch of imagination, it could be dubbed as exorbitant. Accordingly I could see no perversity or illegality in fixing the value of the land. As such by no stretch of imagination, it could be dubbed as exorbitant. Accordingly I could see no perversity or illegality in fixing the value of the land. 11. Insofar as the building value is concerned, I would like to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the landlord that the PWD rate has to be adopted. Therefore, the value found mentioned in the sale deed of the landlord could not be taken for assessment of the value of the building. The Engineer is expected to take into account the PWD rate, and strictly apply the same even though the value might have been for some purpose mentioned below the PWD rate in the sale deed. Accordingly, the value arrived at by the Engineer in respect of the building cannot be found fault with. 12. The learned counsel for the tenant would vociferously argue that the building was more than 88 years' old as even during the year 1910 there was reference in the deed about the existence of the building and in such a case, the question of ascertaining the age of the building as 32 is neither here nor there. Whereas the learned counsel for the landlord would submit that the Engineer conducted a thorough examination and found out that the building was erected during the year 1967; to that effect, he found an engravement there on the building itself. The Engineer is an independent person as against whom no aspersion could be cast. With his experience he inspected the building and he took into account the said engravement and assessed the age of the building as 32. Wherefore, I could see no perversity or illegality in his approach. The Engineer also, for the demised premises, proportionately worked out the relevant figures, and furnished his opinion which was accepted by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority. 13. Trite, the proposition of law, is that when there are concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below, the revisional Court is not expected to interfere with such finding unless there is any perversity or illegality. My discussions supra would show that absolutely there is no perversity or illegality involved in the appraisal of both the fora below. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.