Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1978 (MAD)

K. Gowtham Chand v. Chandrapushpa

2014-07-04

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner K.Gowtham Chand is the tenant in respect of the petition premises, namely a shop in the ground floor of the building bearing Door No. 2A/2, Sivaprakasam Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 . He became a tenant in 1982 under Late Tmt.G.S.Chandrapushpa, initially for a monthly rent of Rs.400/-which was subsequently increased by mutual consent to Rs.800/- per month. The said increase in the rent was made in accordance with the terms agreed to between the parties at the time of entering into the tenancy arrangement evidenced by document which contained a clause that the rent was subject to enhancement at the end of 5 years from the date of inception of the tenancy and such increase in the rent should be fixed by mutual consent after negotiation between the parties. As there was no consensus regarding the rent to be fixed after a lapse of time, the landlord Late Tmt.G.S.Chandrapushpa filed a petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, praying for fixation of fair rent in respect of the shop regarding which the revision petitioner was the tenant under her. The same was taken on file by the learned Rent Controller (X Judge, Court of Small causes), Chennai as R.C.O.P No.1396 of 1996. After service of notice, the revision petitioner/tenant entered appearance and resisted the petition contending that the tenant could concede the prayer for fixation of fair rent, but the amount claimed by the landlord as fair rent was highly excessive. He furnished a calculation and prayed for fixing a sum of Rs.844/-per month as fair rent for the petition premises. 2. The learned Rent Controller, after enquiry, allowed the said R.C.O.P for fixation of fair rent by an order dated 30.04.2004, fixed the fair rent for the petition premises at Rs.2,202/- per month and directed the revision petitioner herein/tenant to pay the said amount as fair rent from the date of filing of the R.C.O.P. The said order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai in R.C.A.No.1032 of 2004 by the revision petitioner herein/tenant seeking reduction of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. Tmt.G.S.Chandrapushpa, the landlord preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.1396 of 2004 claiming enhancement of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. Tmt.G.S.Chandrapushpa, the landlord preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.1396 of 2004 claiming enhancement of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. During the pendency of the said rent control appeals, the sole appellant in R.C.A.No.1396 of 2004, who was the sole respondent in R.C.A.No.1032 of 2004, passed away and the respondents 1 to 4 herein, being her legal representatives, were impleaded as respondents 2 to 5 in the appeal filed by the tenant (R.C.A.No.1032 of 2004) and as appellants 2 to 5 in R.C.A.No.1396 of 2004, the appeal filed by the landlord. 3. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing, by a common judgment and decretal orders dated 30.06.2008, dismissed the appeal R.C.A.No.1396 of 2004 filed by the landlord seeking enhancement of the fair rent, allowed the appeal R.C.A.No.1032 of 2004 filed by the revision petitioner herein/tenant and reduced the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller to Rs.1852/- per month from Rs.2202/- per month. 4. As against the said judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal R.C.A.No.1396 of 2004 filed by the landlord, legal representatives of the landlord, namely the respondents herein have not chosen to file any revision. On the other hand, the revision petitioner herein/tenant alone has chosen to file C.R.P.No.2636 of 2010 challenging the decree passed in R.C.A.No.1032 of 2004, the appeal filed by him. Though the appeal filed by the landlord R.C.A.No.1396 of 2004 was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner herein/tenant has chosen to file a revision against the decree passed in the said Rent Control Appeal also as C.R.P.No.2637 of 2010.5. Since both the revisions have arisen out of the common judgment and decretal orders passed in the Rent Control Appeals arising out of one and the same R.C.O.P, both the revisions were jointly heard and are now being disposed of by a common order. 6. The arguments advanced by Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revisions/tenant and the arguments advanced by Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the respondents in both the revisions were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 7. It is not in dispute that Late Tmt. 6. The arguments advanced by Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revisions/tenant and the arguments advanced by Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the respondents in both the revisions were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 7. It is not in dispute that Late Tmt. G.S. Chandrapushpa was the owner of the petition premises and she let out the petition shop for a non-residential purpose to the revision petitioner herein in the month of September 1982 on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- and that by mutual consent, the rent was subsequently increased to Rs.800/-per month. As on the date of filing of the R.C.O.P concerned in these revisions, the contractual rent was Rs.800/- per month. Contending that the said amount was low and the property would fetch more amount as fair rent and that the landlord and the tenant could not arrive at a consensus regarding the same, the landlord Tmt.G.S. Chandrapushpa filed the above said petition R.C.O.P.No.1396 of 1998 praying for the fixation of fair rent at Rs.2527/-per month. The said claim was based on her contention that the shop let out to the revision petitioner / tenant was in the ground floor of the building in Sivaprakasam Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 which was admittedly a commercial area. Both the parties to the R.C.O.P admitted that the building was a Type 1 building with basic amenities like water supply, drainage connection and electricity connection besides availability of common flush out toilet. 8. Though the above said facts were admitted by the revision petitioner herein/tenant, correctness of the other particulars furnished by the landlord for justifying the claim for fixation of fair rent at the rate mentioned in the petition were disputed by the revision petitioner herein/tenant. According to the landlord, the shop portion occupied by the revision petitioner, as tenant, would measure 172 sq.ft and the land value in the area at the relevant point of time was Rs.48,00,000/-per ground. According to the landlord, the shop portion occupied by the revision petitioner, as tenant, would measure 172 sq.ft and the land value in the area at the relevant point of time was Rs.48,00,000/-per ground. The landlord in her petition for fixation of fair rent, narrated the nature of construction and condition of the building to the effect that the building had been constructed with brick and cement mortar and plastered with cement mortar; that the roof was constructed on reinforced concrete; that teak wood had been used for the joineries and flooring was done with mosaic tiles and that besides providing rolling shutter, water, drainage and electricity connections were provided to show that it was a Type-1 building. 9. The revision petitioner herein/tenant in his counter statement admitted that the portion let out to him had been built with brick and cement mortar with RCC roofing; that the flooring was with mosaic tiles and plastering was with cement mortar and that the shop was also provided with rolling shutter. It was also specifically admitted by the revision petitioner/tenant that the building was a Type-1 building. However, the revision petitioner/tenant contended that the building was 20 years old, whereas the landlord contended that the building was 18 years old. In this regard, the landlord produced the building permit issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai dated 27.08.1980 and the same was marked as Ex.P2. One M.Ajeez Mohideen, Civil Engineer was examined as PW2 by the landlord. His report dated 12.12.2000 has been marked as Ex.P3. In the said report he had fixed the age of the superstructure as about 17-18 years old. On the other hand, one Mr.Raghavendra Rao, an Engineer engaged by the revision petitioner/tenant was examined as RW2. His report has been marked as Ex.R2. In the report he had stated that the building was a Type 1 building and it was about 20 years old. Both PW2 and RW2 reiterated their stand made in their respective reports regarding the age of the building. The difference is not significant as it is only two years. Though RW2 would have stated that according to his assessment the age of the building was about 20 years, there is no evidence to support him and corroborate him. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the age of the building stands corroborated by Ex.P2. The difference is not significant as it is only two years. Though RW2 would have stated that according to his assessment the age of the building was about 20 years, there is no evidence to support him and corroborate him. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the age of the building stands corroborated by Ex.P2. Ex.P2 is the building permit granted on 27.08.1980 and the permit was to expire on 27.02.1983. Therefore, it shall be quite probable that the building could have been completed between 1980 to 1982. The learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority rightly fixed the age of the building at 18 years as on the date of filing of the R.C.O.P for fixation of fair rent. The said finding is not challenged by the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also has conceded that he could not advance any argument against the fixation of the age of the building made by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 10. The main controversy is regarding the area on which the shop had been constructed and the valuation of the land. According to the landlord, the market value of the land was Rs.48,00,000/- per ground, whereas according to the revision petitioner/tenant it was Rs.20,00,000/- per ground. In this regard, though PW2 would have taken the market value as Rs.48,00,000/- per ground and RW2 would have taken the market value as Rs.20,00,000/-per ground, none of them and none of the parties chose to produce any sale deed pertaining to properties in and around the area to prove the market value of land. When both the parties have not produced any document to show that similar land situated in the area had been sold for a particular price, reliance can be made on the guideline value. It was held so in N.Sulaiman Vs. R.Ravichandran reported in 1996 (1) CTC 3 . Since the landlord as well as tenant failed to produce any document evidencing the market value for which similar properties in the area had been sold, the learned Rent Controller chose to adopt the guideline value which was proved by the production of Ex.X1. As per Ex.X1, the guideline value of the land was Rs.1454/-per sq.ft during the relevant period. Since the landlord as well as tenant failed to produce any document evidencing the market value for which similar properties in the area had been sold, the learned Rent Controller chose to adopt the guideline value which was proved by the production of Ex.X1. As per Ex.X1, the guideline value of the land was Rs.1454/-per sq.ft during the relevant period. The learned Rent Controller, took trouble in converting the same into a rate per ground and thereafter applying the same to the area of land to be taken into consideration for the purpose of finding out the value of the site, extent of which was in square feet. However, the fact remains that the learned Rent Controller has not committed any mistake in fixing the market value of the site at the rate of Rs.34,89,600/-per ground which is equivalent to Rs.1454/- per square feet as reflected in Ex.X1. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, without assigning tenable reasons, arbitrarily fixed the market value of land at Rs.40,00,000/- per ground. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was wrong in arbitrarily fixing the market value at Rs.40,00,000/-per ground and the same should be modified by reducing the market value of the land to Rs.34,89,600/- per ground equivalent to Rs.1454/-per square feet restoring the finding of the Rent Controller in this regard. 11. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 provides the manner in which the fair rent for residential and non-residential buildings should be fixed. Fair rent for non-residential portion shall be 12% of gross return per annum on the total cost of the building. Total cost of the building shall mean market value of the site in which the building has been constructed, the cost of construction of the building and also the cost of provision for any one or more of the amenities specified in Schedule I. While ascertaining the value of the site in which the building has been constructed, the portion of the site on which the building stands should be taken into account and the vacant site, if any, shall also be taken into account, provided it is less than or equivalent to half of the extent of the site on which the building stands. In case the appurtenant vacant site is more than half of the area on which the building stands, then that part of the area of the appurtenant vacant site equivalent to half of the area on which the buildings stands alone shall be added for the purpose of calculation of the site value and excess vacant land shall be treated only as amenity. So far as the cost of provision of any one or more of the amenities specified in Schedule I is concerned, it shall be on a particular percentage of the total cost of the site and the cost of site in which the building is constructed and the cost of construction of the building subject to a rider that it shall not exceed 15% in case of residential building and 25% in case of non-residential building. The learned Rent Controller allowed 15% of the construction cost towards the provision of basic amenities, added the same with the cost of construction and thereafter allowed disallowance for depreciation at the rate of 1% per annum from the said amount to arrive at as the total cost of construction of the building including amenities. The learned Rent Controller separately assessed the land value and added the same with the depreciated value of the building and arrived at the figure Rs.2,14,844/- to be the value of the site as well as the cost of construction less depreciation. However, once again the learned Rent Controller added 2% for one of the amenities found mentioned in Schedule I, namely availability of appurtenant vacant land and mosaic flooring. The same resulted in duplication as the construction cost was loaded with an addition at a certain percentage towards the cost of providing basic amenities while arriving at the cost of construction and again with an addition at a certain percentage of the total value of the land and building (depreciated value) towards the Schedule I amenities. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also committed the same mistake by allowing 10% increase in the cost of construction alone towards basic amenities at the first instance and again 5% increase on the total value of the land and the building for Schedule I amenities. In this regard, a distinction shall be drawn between the basic amenities and Schedule I amenities. Cost of providing basic amenities shall be included in the cost of construction itself. In this regard, a distinction shall be drawn between the basic amenities and Schedule I amenities. Cost of providing basic amenities shall be included in the cost of construction itself. Assessing basic amenities at a particular percentage is not the one contemplated in the provision. Addition in percentage subject to a cap can be made only for the provision of one or more of Schedule I amenities. Proviso 2 of Section 4(4) reads as follows: Provided further that the cost of provision of amenities specified in Schedule I shall not exceed - (i) in the case of any residential building, fifteen per cent; and (ii) in the case of any non-residential building, twenty-five percent of the cost of site in which the building is constructed, and the cost of construction of the building as determined under this section. 12. The following procedure shall be adopted in fixing the total cost of the building. I) Value of the Building alone: i. Cost of construction of the building as per PWD rate as on the date of filing + cost of providing amenities (P) ii. Depreciation at the rate of 1% per annum (Q) iii. Depreciated value of the building with amenities (P - Q) II) Value of the site: i. Area of the site in which the building stands (a) ii. Vacant land appurtenant to the site in which building stands subject to a cap of 50% of the site in which the building stands (b) iii. Total area to be taken into account for fixing the value of the site (a + b) IV) Total amount to be taken as the value iv. Market value of the land measuring (a+b) (R) III) Total value of the land and building (P-Q+R) i. Addition or deduction under Section 4(5)(a) + S ii. Addition for Schedule 1 amenities (T) of the land and building for the purpose fixing the fair rent X = (P-Q+R+S+T) The building being non residential, 12% of 'X' shall be the annual return. Hence the fair rent per month shall be X x 12/100 x 1/12 = X/100 Now the above said formula can be applied to calculate the fair rent for the building. Cost of Construction: 13. Hence the fair rent per month shall be X x 12/100 x 1/12 = X/100 Now the above said formula can be applied to calculate the fair rent for the building. Cost of Construction: 13. Though the landlord made a plea that the plinth area of the shop accounted for 172 sq.ft., tenant came forward with a stand that the plinth area of the shop was only 146 sq.ft. In this regard, the Engineer examined on the side of the tenant, namely RW2, did not file any plan showing the lineal measurements of the building or the shop portion concerned in this case. He has also admitted that he did not prepare any plan and annexe it with his report. On the other hand, the Engineer who deposed on the side of the landlord, namely PW2, produced Ex.P4-plan containing such measurements. The evidence of PW2, which is in tune with Ex.P3 - Report and Ex.P4 - Plan should be preferred to that of RW2. According to the testimonies of PWs1 and 2, which stand corroborated by Exs.P3 and P4, the plinth area of the shop is 169 sq.ft. (18'9" x 9'). The said pieces of evidence also prove the existence of a cantilever slab in front of the shop portion of which the revision petitioner is the tenant and such cantilever slab measures 9' x 5'. It is also an admitted fact that the ground floor of the building contains common flush out toilets to the extent of 44 sq.ft. PW2 has chosen to take 1/6th of the said extent of 44 sq.ft. to be the corresponding share referable to the petition shop on the premise that there were six shops. However, the landlord has admitted in the petition itself that the ground floor of the building consists of seven shops and one office space. The relevant portion of the petition averment is : "there are seven shops and an office space in the ground floor". Hence the common flush out toilet area should be divided by eight to find out the proportionate share of the built up area to be added to the plinth area of the shop. The said procedure has to be adopted, since neither the floor area of the entire building nor the plinth area of each portion came to be furnished by the parties. The said procedure has to be adopted, since neither the floor area of the entire building nor the plinth area of each portion came to be furnished by the parties. There are seven shops and one office space on the ground floor. The landlord had leased out the centre shop on the ground floor at the front facing Sivaprakasam Street to the respondent. There is no plea or evidence as to who is using the office space in the ground floor. Hence the office space should be taken as equivalent to one shop and hence it has to be taken that the flush out toilet in the ground floor shall be common for seven shops and office space. 14. The built up portion including the share in the common flush out toilet was valued by the learned Rent Controller at the rate of Rs.297/- per sq.ft. The said rate came to be adopted by the Rent Controller citing the PWD rates for the similar type of construction based on the PWD rates applicable to the said area for the year 1998-1999 for similar type of construction. The ratio decided in M/s.Maya Appliances and Control Equipment rep. by its partner Thiru Varadarajan and another Vs. A.Sulochana Reddy and another reported in 1996(I) CTC 567 supports such calculation. The existence of a cantilever slab with the measurement of 9'x5' in alignment with the roof of the shop of the revision petitioner has also been proved by evidence and it has also been admitted by the witnesses examined on the side of the tenant. Hence the construction of the cantilever slab was also rightly included in the cost of construction of the building by both the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The cost of construction of the cantilever slab was taken by both the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority took the construction cost of the building and also the share in the flush out toilet at the same rate viz. Rs.297/- per sq.ft. However, the Rent Controller seems to have committed a mistake in computing the total extent of the built up area to be valued at Rs.297/- per sq.ft. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority took the construction cost of the building and also the share in the flush out toilet at the same rate viz. Rs.297/- per sq.ft. However, the Rent Controller seems to have committed a mistake in computing the total extent of the built up area to be valued at Rs.297/- per sq.ft. Though the built up area of the shop and the area of the projected cantilever were correctly taken as 169 sq.ft. and 45 sq.ft. respectively, the learned Rent Controller committed a small mistake in computing the share referable to the shop concerned in this petition in the common flush out toilet. It proceeded on the assumption that there were six portions and 1/6th portion of the flush out toilet viz. 7.3 sq.ft. was referable to the shop. As pointed out supra, the landlord, in her petition itself, admitted that there are seven shops and one office space in the ground floor portion. In the absence of specific measurements of the area occupied by the other shops and the office space, it shall be quite just and reasonable to assume that all the shops and the office space occupy equal areas. Hence the area covering the flush out toilet has to be divided by eight to find out the share referable to the shop rented out to the revision petitioner. If the total area of flush out toilet, namely 44 sq.ft. is divided by 8, it will come to 5.5 sq.ft. As the rate of construction of the shop and the flush out toilet are different and the same can be added to the plinth area of the shop portion, the area of the shop portion and the share in the common flush out toilet shall be 169+5.5 = 174.5 sq.ft. The construction cost of the petition premises, namely shop, can be calculated as follows: I) Cost of construction of the shop at the rate of Rs.297/- per sq.ft. = 174.5 x 297 = Rs.51,826.50 II) Cost of construction of the extended cantilever slab at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. = 45 x 100 = Rs. 4,500.00 Total cost of the building referable to the demised shop = Rs.56,326.50 Rounded of to Rs.56,327/- As pointed out supra, the term cost of construction shall include the cost of providing basic amenities also. = 45 x 100 = Rs. 4,500.00 Total cost of the building referable to the demised shop = Rs.56,326.50 Rounded of to Rs.56,327/- As pointed out supra, the term cost of construction shall include the cost of providing basic amenities also. If the cost of construction is calculated at a particular rate per square feet, it should be taken as inclusive of the cost of providing basic amenities. For the purpose of ascertaining the cost of construction which shall be inclusive of the cost of providing the basic amenities, the rates adopted for the purpose of estimation by the Public Works Department shall be taken into consideration. Sub clause (5)(a) of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 makes it clear. At the cost of repetition sub clause (5)(a) is reproduced here under. "(5)(a) The cost of construction of the building including cost of internal water-supply, sanitary and electrical installations shall be determined with the due regard to the rates adopted for the purpose of estimation by the Public Works Department of the Government for the area concerned. The Controller may, in appropriate cases, allow or disallow an amount not exceeding thirty percent of construction having regard to the nature of construction of the building." When we refer to the PWD rates as found in the mini handbook maintained by PWD, the rates shall be taken as inclusive of the provision of basic amenities unless it is found specifically mentioned therein that the rates found therein are exclusive of the cost of providing basic amenities, namely electricity, water and drainage facility. Adding certain percentage towards the cost of providing basic amenities over and above the PWD rates shall be unconscionable. There is nothing in the order of the Rent Controller and in the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the PWD rates adopted by them was inclusive of the cost of providing basic amenities. If the same was exclusive of the cost of providing basic amenities, then separate rate should have been provided by the PWD for the provision of basic amenities on the basis of area, number of water outlets, number of switches, electrical appliances and plug points etc. When it is not there we have to assume that the PWD rate includes the cost of providing basic amenities. When it is not there we have to assume that the PWD rate includes the cost of providing basic amenities. Hence no percentage of the cost of construction calculated at the rate of Rs.297/- per sq.ft. (PWD rate) shall be added towards the cost of providing basic amenities. Since the building is admitted to be a Type one building and there is no allegation of defective execution of the construction or use of sub-standard materials, no deduction under Section 4(5)(a) is allowed. The present value of the building should be ascertained by finding out the depreciated value. We have seen that the age of the building as on the date of filing of the petition was 18 years. Depreciated value of the building (P) = A(100-r/100)n = 56327 (99/100)18 = 56327 x 0.8345 = Rs.47,005/- 14. Value of the Land The plinth area of the building including the share in the common flush out toilet has been fixed at 174.5 sq.ft. Admittedly, the first floor and the second floor portions were put up even over the cantilever portions. There is no clear plea as to what is the extent of the open space. On the other hand, both the Courts below proceeded on the assumption that the open space aligning with the shop of the revision petitioner alone should be taken into account. Since it was held supra that there are seven shops and one office space in the ground floor, the area in which the building stands shall be 174.5 sq.ft. x 8 = 1396 sq.ft. From Ex.X1, it can be ascertained that the total extent of the land is 1544 sq.ft. If the built up portion computed above is deducted from the said extent, then the total vacant space can be arrived at. Thus the total vacant space shall be 1544 1396 = 148 sq.ft. As the said vacant space is less than the 50% of the built up area, namely 1396 sq.ft., the entire extent is to be added to the built up area for computing the value of the land and there shall be no excess land to be taken as amenity. The share referable to the petition shop in the vacant space shall be 174.5+(148/8) = 174.5 + 18.5 = 193 sq.ft. The share referable to the petition shop in the vacant space shall be 174.5+(148/8) = 174.5 + 18.5 = 193 sq.ft. In this regard reliance can be made to the order of the Division Bench of this court in H.C.Lodha v. Dr.C.Ranganathan and others reported in 1981 (1) MLJ 213. In case of multi-storied building, while computing the value of the land for the purpose of fixation of fair rent of a particular portion, the proportionate share alone shall be taken into account. Reliance can be made to the judgment of this court in S.Attendrooloo Chetty's Charities by its president and trustees, S.Venkatarangam and others v. M/s.Sadhana Aushadalaya by its proprietor Naresh Chandra Ghose reported in 1968 (II) MLJ 406 . 15. In this case, both the Courts below and this court is handicapped because of the absence of necessary particulars as to what is the plinth area of the first floor portion and what is the plinth area of the second floor portion. However Engineers engaged by both the parties, who were examined as PW2 and RW2 respectively, have chosen to take the open space on the front side of the shop alone as the open space referable to the demised shop and the first floor and second floor portions situated vertically over the demised shop and divide the said open space by three. The said method is erroneous. As determined the market value at the rate of Rs.1454/- should be applied. Therefore the entire extent of land should be taken for the purpose of calculating the land value: 1544 x 1454 = Rs.22,44,976/-. Assuming that all the floors have got equal area, the cost referable to ground floor alone shall be: Rs.22,44,976/3 = Rs.7,48,325/-. The same should be divided by 8 to know the value of the land over which the revision petitioner shop stands: Rs.7,48,325/8 = Rs.93,541/-. Since the building is a non-residential building and it does have one of the Schedule I amenities, namely mosaic tile flooring, the cost of providing Schedule I amenities can be worked out at 15% of the cost of land and building as per second proviso to sub clause (2) of Section 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 16. Now the figures found out, shall be applied to the formula: Depreciated value of the building (P-Q) : Rs. 16. Now the figures found out, shall be applied to the formula: Depreciated value of the building (P-Q) : Rs. 47,005.00 Market value of the land (R) : Rs. 93,541.00 Total value of the land and building (P-Q+R): Rs.1,40,546.00 Addition or deduction under Section 4(5)(a) = (+S) : Nil Addition for Schedule I Amenities as per sub clause (ii) to second proviso of Section 4(4) @ 15%: (T) : Rs. 21,082.00 Total X = (P-Q+R+S+T) : Rs.1,61,628.00 The building being non-residential one, 12% of the same should be taken as the annual return. Hence the monthly rent shall be X x 12/100 x 1/100 = Rs.1,61,628/- x 12/100 x 1/12 = Rs.1,61,628/100 = Rs.1,616.18 R.o. Rs.1,616/- Hence the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority deserves to be reduced from Rs.1,852/- to Rs.1,616/-. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed in part. The decretal orders of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes dated 30.06.2008 made in RCA Nos.1032/2004 and 1396/2004 are modified by reducing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority to Rs.1,616/- from Rs.1,852/-. No costs.