Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2501 (MAD)

State Bank of Mysore v. B. R. Pandurangan

2016-07-27

M.DURAISWAMY

body2016
ORDER : Challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No. 619 of 2013 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, modifying the order of the Rent Controller passed in R.C.O.P. No. 463 of 2009 on the file of the XI Judge (Rent Controller), Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 463 of 2009 for fixation of fair rent. 3. According to the petitioner, the building is a Ground plus one R.C.C. framed structure and it has been constructed in a plot measuring 5300 sq.ft. The total built up area of the building was 5783 sq.ft. The built up area on the ground floor was 2724 sq.ft. and first floor was 3059 sq.ft. The building is 21 years old. The building is located at a prime locality and arterial road of K.K. Nagar, which is well connected to the inner ring road connecting the arterial road of Chennai viz., Anna Salai and Koyambedu Bus Stand. The land has been classified as commercial area special type of land by the Planning Authorities as well as by the Registration Department of the State Government. The petitioner/tenant has been paying the monthly rent of Rs.15,925/-. Since the present rent paid by the tenant is very low, the landlords have filed the Original Petition for fixation of fair rent, claiming a sum of Rs.1,88,417/- per month. The tenant disputed the averments stated in the petition and also stated that the claim of Rs.1,88,417/- is highly exorbitant. 4. Before the Rent Controller, on the side of the landlords, two witnesses were examined and 8 documents, Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the tenant, two witnesses were examined and Ex.R1 was marked. 5. The Rent Controller, taking into consideration the case of both parties, fixed the fair rent at Rs.50,571/- payable by the tenant from the date of petition. Aggrieved over the order passed by the Rent Controller, the landlords filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 619 of 2013 for enhancement of the rent. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after taking into consideration the case of both parties, enhanced the monthly rent to Rs.75,098/-. Aggrieved over the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 6. Heard Mr. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after taking into consideration the case of both parties, enhanced the monthly rent to Rs.75,098/-. Aggrieved over the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 6. Heard Mr. S. Sethuraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Ayyasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. The only ground raised by Mr. S. Sethuraman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the Rent Control Appellate Authority ought not to have taken into consideration the appurtenant land for the purpose of valuation of the land where several floors of building are available. The learned counsel further submitted that where several tenants are in occupation, the appurtenant land should not be reckoned for the purpose of valuation. 8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments: (i) 1989 1 L.W. 137 [H.C. Lodha Vs. Dr. C. Ranganathan etc.] wherein a Full Bench of this Court held that out of the vacant area available, upto 50% of the area on which the building is constructed has to be included as site of the building. (ii) (1992) 2 MLK 615 [M. Radhakrishna Rao Vs. A.B. Ahmed Basha and anr.] wherein this Court held as follows:- “20.VI. Market value of the site in which the building is constructed: AS per the ruling of the Full Bench in Lodha V. Senganathan (1989) 1 M.L.J. 213 , for calculating the market value of the site in which the building is constructed, the plinth area of the building one half thereof has to be taken into account. There is no difficulty in applying that formula, if it is a case of one building and one tenant. Complications arise when there is more than one storey in the building and more than one tenant in each storey, as in the present case, In fact, with regard to the second question referred to the Full Bench, as to the method of apportionment, the Full Bench held that the matter should be decided with reference to the terms and conditions of the demise in each case. It was observed that to test prescribed by them should be applied to the facts of each case. It was observed that to test prescribed by them should be applied to the facts of each case. I am of the view that the market value of the site on which the building is constructed has to be ascertained in the first instance on the basis of the section and the proviso as interpreted by the Full Bench. Then it has to be apportioned among the tenants on the basis of the number of portions of tenements into which the building is divided Section 2(2) of the Act defines a 'building' as a building or hut or part of a building or hut let or to be let, separately. In the case of dividing a building into several portions and letting them out to different tenants, each portion has to be taken as a 'building' as defined by the Act. For the purposes of Section 4 of the Act 'building' is that portion which is occupied by the tenant in question. One tenant cannot be mulcted with the liability for market value of the site on which the building is constructed taken as a whole. Necessarily, the market value of the suit in which the building is constructed has to be distributed and apportioned among the tenants. If it is taken floorwise, that will lead to an artificiality, in the case of there being more tenants in each floor. If it is taken on the basis of the plinth area of each of the portions, that will also lead to an artificiality in the case of more storeys than one. In both case, undue advantage will be gained by the landlord. He cannot be entitled to charge each tenant occupying only a small portion of the building with fair rent calculated on the basis of the market value of the plinth area of the entire building + one half thereof. In my opinion, the most equitable way of construing the section and applying the formula evolved by the Full Bench is to distribute or apportion the value of the site occupied by the building as a whole one half thereof equally among the tenements.” 9. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. In my opinion, the most equitable way of construing the section and applying the formula evolved by the Full Bench is to distribute or apportion the value of the site occupied by the building as a whole one half thereof equally among the tenements.” 9. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. T. Ayyasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly fixed the value of the land taking into consideration the appurtenant land for the purpose of valuation of the land. 10. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 771 [Subramania Udayar Sons, Salem and Others Vs. Sathyanarayanan and others] wherein this Court held as follows:- “17. As per the Full Bench decision in Lodha V. Renganathan (supra), 50% of the built up extent is to be added to the built up extent where the appurtenant space is in excess of the built up extent. In this case, total extent is 5000 sq.ft., built up area is 2,805 sq.ft. The appurtenant space is 2,195 sq.ft. As per the decision of the Full Bench, the appurtenant space being lesser than the built up extent, the same will have to be annexed to the built up extent to form aggregate basis for arriving at the market value of the site. (emphasis supplied) If the entire appurtenant space is to be annexed to the built up extent, the market value of the site is to be calculated for the entire extent of 5,000/- sq.ft.” In this judgment, the learned Judge had followed the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1989 1 L.W. 137 [H.C. Lodha Vs. Dr. C. Ranganathan etc.]. As per the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in H.C. Lodha Vs. Dr. C. Ranganathan etc., (cited supra) 50% of the built up extent is to be added to the built up where the appurtenant space is in excess of the built up extent. 11. In the case on hand, the appurtenant extent of the land is 5300 sq.ft., built up area is 3157 sq.f.t. Admittedly, there are three floors (Ground + two floors). Therefore, the appurtenant space is 5300/3 which is equal to 1766.66 sq.ft. 11. In the case on hand, the appurtenant extent of the land is 5300 sq.ft., built up area is 3157 sq.f.t. Admittedly, there are three floors (Ground + two floors). Therefore, the appurtenant space is 5300/3 which is equal to 1766.66 sq.ft. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, taking into consideration the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1989 1 L.W. 137 [H.C. Lodha Vs. Dr. C. Ranganathan etc.] and (2007) 2 MLJ 771 [Subramania Udayar Sons, Salem and Others Vs. Sathyanarayanan and others] had rightly took the appurtenant land measuring an extent of 1766.66 sq.ft. for the purpose of valuation. 12. It is not in dispute that the built up area on the ground floor, which is in occupation of the tenant, measures an extent of 3157 sq.ft. The market value of the land was also taken as Rs.80,00,000/- per ground by the Courts below. The construction cost was taken at Rs.477/- per sq.ft. The Courts below also rightly awarded 3% towards Schedule-1 amenities. Since there is no dispute with regard to other aspects, the finding given by the Rent Control Appellate Authority are confirmed. 13. With regard to the appurtenant land, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly followed the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court and also the judgment reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 771 [Subramania Udayar Sons, Salem and Others Vs. Sathyanarayanan and others] and fixed the value of the land and building at Rs.72,91,103/-. The fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority at Rs.75,098/- is just and proper. 14. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.