Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1638 (MAD)

R. Thirunavukkarasu v. K. K. Narasimaiyer

2014-06-23

R.KARUPPIAH

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The revision petitioner, who is the tenant filed this civil revision petition as against the decree and judgment passed in R.C.A.No.30 of 2003, dated 29.06.2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Salem in which dismissed the appeal and also modifying the fair rent fixed by the first Additional District Munsif/Rent Controller, Salem in R.C.O.P.No.27 of 1997 dated 22.08.2003. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner, who is the tenant in the Rent Control Original Petition is referred as revision petitioner and the respondent, who is the landlord in the Rent Control Original Petition is referred as the respondent hereinafter. 3. The respondent herein has filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.27 of 1997 under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by the Act 23/73 for fixation of fair rent for the petition mentioned property. In the petition, it is stated that the revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent's schedule mentioned property and the petitioner herein is paying the monthly rent of Rs.300/-. According to the respondent, the petition mentioned property is a residential building as such the respondent herein is entitled to fair rent at 9% gross return per annum of the total costs of the building. It is also averred in the petition, the respondent has stated that the building value will not be less than Rs.1,50,000/- and the costs of the construction and amenities will not be less than Rs.10,00,000/-and the monthly fair rent will not be less than Rs.3000/- p.m., and therefore, prayed for fixing the fair rent. 4. The revision petitioner has filed a counter in which it is stated that at the time of entered into the rental agreement, the monthly rent was originally fixed only at Rs.30/-, which was subsequently periodically and lastly, the rent was enhanced to Rs.300/-per month. The revision petitioner has also denied the value of the land and building as stated in the petition. It is also averred in the counter that the present rent of Rs.300/-per month is the fair rent and the claim of the respondent herein Rs.3,000/- per month is exorbitant and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. The revision petitioner has also denied the value of the land and building as stated in the petition. It is also averred in the counter that the present rent of Rs.300/-per month is the fair rent and the claim of the respondent herein Rs.3,000/- per month is exorbitant and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Rent Controller, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides and considering the value of the property, finally, fixed the value of the land as Rs.3,49,238/-and taken into account 8% of the gross net income per month and fixed the monthly rent as Rs.2,328/- which was rounded off to Rs.2,300/-. 6. Aggrieved over the above said findings, the revision petitioner had preferred a Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A.No.30 of 2003 and the Appellate Authority has accepted the value of the land fixed by the Rent Controller, but the gross net income alone has been increased from 8% to 9% and fixed the rent as Rs.2,619/- per month, which was rounded off to Rs.2,600/- per month. Challenging the above said fixation of fair rent by the Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner, who is the tenant has preferred this revision petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent has not produced any document of title to prove the market value of the land and in the above said circumstances, the value of the land fixed by both the Courts below as per the guideline value is not correct. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further submitted that as per the settled principle of law, the market value of the land alone has to be taken into consideration and therefore, the fixation of fair rent as Rs.2,600/- p.m., by the Appellate Authority is not correct and it is liable to be set aside. 8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Sakthi & Co., through its Partner, Veeranan v. Shree Desigachary [ 2006(2) CTC 433 ], wherein it is held in paragraph No.18, which are as follows: “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 & Rent Control) Act, 1960. The above said principle of law laid down by this Court is in dispute. But, in the instant case, the revision petitioner has not at all pleaded the amount of market value and also not produced any document to prove the market value at the time of filing the petition. Further, the revision petitioner has not deposed about the market value of land at the time of giving oral evidence also. In the above said circumstance, the above said decision relied on by the revision petitioner is not helpful to the revision petitioner. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein submitted that the revision petitioner has not at all produced any material to prove the market value of the property more than the guideline value at the time of filing the petition and not proved by reliable oral and documentary evidence and therefore, both the Courts below have correctly fixed the value of the land and there is no need to interfere with the above said findings. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the revision petitioner has not produced any material to prove the value of the land more than fixed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have considered the report of the Engineer and also guideline value and correctly fixed the land value and therefore, the value fixed by both the Courts below are not excessive. The Rent Controller has wrongly taken 8% of gross net income for fixation of monthly rent, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority has correctly fixed 9% on gross net income. The Rent Controller has wrongly taken 8% of gross net income for fixation of monthly rent, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority has correctly fixed 9% on gross net income. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has not questioned the above said gross net income fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has considered the both sides oral and documentary evidence and correctly fixed the fair rent and hence, there is no need to interfere with the above said findings given by the Appellate Authority. 11. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.