Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4136 (MAD)

P. S. Mohankumar v. V. K. Narasimhan

2014-11-06

R.KARUPPIAH

body2014
Order 1. These two separate civil revision petitions have been filed by both the landlord and tenant, challenging the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.1208 of 2004. 2. For the sake of convenience, the revision petitioner in CRP(NPD) No.3595 of 2007 and respondent in CRP (NPD)No.1322 of 2008 referred as tenant and the respondent in CRP (NPD) No.3595 of 2007 and revision petitioner in CRP (NPD) No.1322 of 2008 referred as landlord hereafter. 3. Admittedly, the landlord namely, V.K.Narasimhan filed a petition under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, (Act 18 of 1960 and as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980) for fixation of fair rent at Rs.6308/-per month. Briefly the case of the landlord is that the premises bearing Door Nos.37 and 38, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-1 belongs to the landlord. The tenant paying total monthly rent of Rs.750/- to the landlord. According to the landlord, the petition premises situated in Heart of the city and cost of the site alone is more than Rs.40,00,000/- per ground. The above said premises is about 80 years old and it is a country tiled roof in the ground floor and Mangalore tiled roof and G.I.Sheet roof in the 1st Floor. Cement mortar and teak wood is used in the above said building. Hence, it is type-II building. According to the landlord, the plinth area of the residential portion in ground floor is 362 sq.ft., and the plinth area of the non-residential floor in the 1st floor is 126 sq.ft and G.I.Sheet room is 47 sq.ft. Public Works Department arrived the cost of construction during 2003-04 for this type of building in ground floor at Rs.222/- per sq.ft., in 1st floor at Rs.227/-per sq.ft., and G.I.Sheet room at Rs.227/-per sq.ft. Since electricity, hand pump, borewell, three numbers of toilet and drainage facilities are available, 15% is to be ordered towards basic amenities. The landlord's Civil Engineer inspected the premises on 15.10.2013 and worked out the fair rent as Rs.6300/- p.m. Therefore, the landlord prayed for to fix the fair rent as Rs.6308/-per month. 4. Since electricity, hand pump, borewell, three numbers of toilet and drainage facilities are available, 15% is to be ordered towards basic amenities. The landlord's Civil Engineer inspected the premises on 15.10.2013 and worked out the fair rent as Rs.6300/- p.m. Therefore, the landlord prayed for to fix the fair rent as Rs.6308/-per month. 4. The tenant has filed a detailed counter in the above said petition and contended before the Rent Controller that the tenant is paying rent at Rs.427/-in the name of Maruthi Drugs and Rs.350/-p.m., including water charges in the name of the landlord. According to the tenant, the premises is very bad condition and the respondent alone maintaining the premises at his own cost. The site value cannot be more than Rs.1,00,000/-per ground, considering the locality and the slum is nearby. Further, the age of the building also more than 100 years and the building is of class III type. In the premises No.37 provided with one tap and no water is available and in Door No.38, not provided with water but only one bore water with hand pump is provided and there is no bath room for the premises. Therefore, the rent paid by the tenant at Rs.750/-p.m. as fair and acceptable. The area calculated is also not proper and separate petitions are to be filed. Therefore, prayed for to fix the rent at Rs.750/- p.m. 5. The Rent Controller, on perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence and finally fixed the area of the site as 362 sq.ft. The Rent Controller fixed the age of the building as 80 years old and fixed the fair rent for residential portion at Rs.7034/- and for non-residential portion at Rs.2335/-and totally fixed the fair rent as Rs.9369/-per month and directed to pay the above said rent from the date of petition. 6. Aggrieved over the above said fixation of rent by the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred a Rent Control Appeal in RCA No.1208 of 2004. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on the side of the tenant contended that the single petition filed for fixation of fair rent to two door numbers are not maintainable. 6. Aggrieved over the above said fixation of rent by the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred a Rent Control Appeal in RCA No.1208 of 2004. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on the side of the tenant contended that the single petition filed for fixation of fair rent to two door numbers are not maintainable. But, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has considered the pleadings and also relied on the decision reported in 1)1972 TNLJ 54 (P.M.Patel v. Ramanathan), 2) 1988 (2) MLJ 262 (Lipton India Limited v. Smt.M.M.K. Sara Uma), 3)1990 TNLJ 204 (Radhakrishnan and two others v. Rajasekar @ Rajee and two others) and finally rejected the contention of the tenant and held that the petition is maintainable. At the time of Rent Control Appeal, the tenant has raised another question that the mother of the landlord/petitioner also owner of the property and hence, without impleading the mother, the petition is not maintainable. The Rent Control Appellate Authority rejected the above said contention by relying on two decisions reported in 2004(7) SCC 277 (Inder Sain Bedi (deceased) By LRs v. Chopra Electricals) and 1998 (1) CTC 595 (Namagiri Lakshmi v. Pravin Harilal Mehta & 4 others) and also considered the fact that the tenant has not raised the above said fact before the Rent Controller, only raised the above said fact in appellate stage and therefore, rejected the above said contention of the tenant. 7. With regard to fixation of fair rent, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has considered the calculation report of landlord's Engineer in Ex.P2 and also considered the calculation report of tenant's Engineer in Ex.R2 and finally fixed the age of the building as 80 years old since both Engineers have accepted the above said age of the building. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has considered the contention of the landlord that the area of the construction in the ground floor as 362 sq.ft., but, according to the tenant, the area of the construction in ground floor as 356 sq.ft., and on the basis of evidence, the Rent Control Appellate Authority accepted the contention of the tenant and taken as 356 sq.ft., since the landlord has not produced any plan or sketch to show the area of the construction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has also fixed the area of the Mangalore tiled portion as 103 sq.ft. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has also fixed the area of the Mangalore tiled portion as 103 sq.ft. and G.I.sheet portion as 79 sq.ft., as contended by the tenant. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has also accepted the cost of the construction, on the basis of Public Works Department as Rs.266/-, Rs.297/- and Rs.272/-as fixed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has rejected the contention of the tenant that 5% alone is to be taken for basic amenities. The Appellate Authority has held that all the three amenities are available as held by Rent Controller and both sides also accepted the above said facts and therefore, fixed 15% for basic amenities as fixed by the Rent Controller. 8. With regard to the value of the site, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has discussed the documents relied on by the landlord (i.e.) Exs.P3 to P6 and not taken the value on the grounds that the above said sale deeds are relating to sale of meager extent, distance from the petition premises etc. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has rejected Ex.R1 Mortgage Deed relied on by the tenant since it is relating to the document dated 30.09.1993 and also it is only a mortgage deed and therefore, not accepted the above said value for the purpose of fixing the value of the site in the petition premises. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has fixed the value as mentioned in Ex.C1, wherein, it is mentioned as Rs.51,04,800/-and the Rent Control Appellate Authority rounded off the above said amount and fixed as Rs.50,00,000/- per ground to fixation of the value of the site. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority has calculated the extent, value and other relevant factors and finally fixed the rent as Rs.3025/- for ground floor and Rs.2074/- for 1st floor and directed to pay the above said enhanced rent from the date of petition (i.e.) on 13.11.2003. 9. Aggrieved over the above said findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord filed CRP(NPD)No.1322 of 2008 for enhancement of rent and the tenant filed CRP(NPD) No.3595 of 2007 for reducing the rent fixed by Rent Control Appellate Authority. 10. Heard Mr.A.Aruldeepan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant and Mr.A.Avudainayagam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / landlord and perused the materials available on record. 11. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. 10. Heard Mr.A.Aruldeepan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant and Mr.A.Avudainayagam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / landlord and perused the materials available on record. 11. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The age of the building is 80 years old also not in dispute. Further, both sides admitted that the building is a type II building. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the landlord filed the petition for fixation of fair rent in respect of the two premises bearing Door Nos.37 and 38 in a single petition and therefore, the above said petition is not at all maintainable. The Appellate Authority has discussed in detail in the judgment that the tenant has not raised the above said question in the counter in detail and in the counter, it is only stated as ''the petition has filed is not maintainable in law, the separate petitions are to be filed''. Further, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has relied on three decisions cited by the landlord as already discussed and held that the petition is maintainable. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant has not relied any provisions of law or any decisions to substantiate his contention that the petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has correctly held that the petition is maintainable and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also not seriously objected the above said question before this Court. The learned counsel also not challenged the finding that the petition is maintainable even though the mother of the landlord not impleaded. 12. In these revision petitions, the main question is to be decided whether the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is perverse or illegal as contended by the learned counsel appearing for both sides ? 13. The learned counsel appearing for the landlord would submit that the Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to have adopted the plinth area as given by landlord's Engineer. The learned counsel further submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has wrongly fixed the land value as Rs.50,00,000/- instead of correct value at Rs.60,00,000/-as fixed by the Rent Controller on the basis of Exs.P3 and P5 sale deeds. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for to enhance the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has wrongly fixed the land value as Rs.50,00,000/- instead of correct value at Rs.60,00,000/-as fixed by the Rent Controller on the basis of Exs.P3 and P5 sale deeds. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for to enhance the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant mainly contended that DW2 the tenant's Engineer has categorically mentioned the value of the site as Rs.3,00,000/- per ground, but, the Rent Controller fixed as Rs.60,00,000/-per ground and Rent Control Appellate Authority fixed at Rs.50,00,000/- per ground are excessive and also unsustainable in law. The another contention of the tenant is that both Authorities below have committed error in awarding 15% for basic amenities. The learned counsel pointed out that there are number of tenants in the premises and the building is very old and the amenities provided cannot be construed to be the basic amenities as mandated under the Act, and therefore, the basic amenities should be calculated only at 5%. Hence, prayed or to reduce the fair rent fixed by both Authorities below. 15. As already discussed, the age of the building is 80 years old is not in dispute and the type of the building is also not in dispute. With regard to plinth area, the Rent Controller fixed as 362 sq.ft. The Appellate Authority has held that the landlord has not produced any materials such as plan and sketch granted at the time of giving permission to construct the building and hence, taken as 356 sq.ft., as contended by tenant. The above said finding of the Appellate Authority is not perverse or illegal. 16. On a careful reading of the judgment of Rent Control Appellate Authority regarding value of the land revealed that Rent Control Appellate Authority has discussed about Exs.P3 to P6 copy of sale deeds relied on by the landlord but declined to take the value mentioned in the above said documents on the grounds that the above said documents are relating to properties situated in far away places, they are not relating to period of the present petition and also sold the above said properties as meager extent. Further, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has also rejected to fix the value mentioned in Ex.R1 copy of mortgage deed marked by the tenant since it is relating to 30.09.1993 and also it is a mortgage deed. From both side evidence revealed that as rightly held by Appellate Authority the documents Exs.P3 to P6 marked by the landlord are relating to meager extent and also situated in far away from the petition mentioned premises. Further, Ex.R1 marked by tenant also mortgage deed relating to 1993 and hence not taken into consideration to fix the value. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has considered the relevant factors such as petition premises situated in business area, other advantageous features etc., fixed the value of land as Rs.50,00,000/- instead of Rs.60,00,000/-per ground. The above said finding of the Appellate Authority is also not perverse or illegal. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant would submit that there are number of tenants in the premises and also binding in old and hence the amenities provided cannot be construed to be basic amenities as mandated under the Act and therefore, the basic amenities should be calculated only at 5%. In this regard, both the Authorities, concurrently held that all the three amenities are available as mentioned under the Act from both side evidence and hence rightly rejected the contention of the tenant. Therefore, the above said finding of both the Authorities also not perverse or illegal. 18. From the above said discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has correctly considered all the relevant factors and on the basis of both side evidence, fixed the fair rent as Rs.3025/- for ground floor and Rs.2074/- for first floor and the above said findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority are not perverse and also not illegal and therefore, there is no need to interfere in the above said correct findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 19. In the result, both Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P(NPD)No.3595 of 2007 and C.R.P(NPD) No.1322 of 2008 are dismissed. No order as to costs.