Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3060 (MAD)

Natarajan v. K. Sivakumar

2017-09-07

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 17.08.2006, passed in R.C.A.No.17 of 2005, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 27.04.2005, passed in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2001, on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, by the tenant. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the rent control original petition. 3. Seeking for fixation of fair rent, the rent control original petition has been laid by the landlord under Section 4 (1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1974. 4. In brief, according to the landlord, the petition schedule property (hereinafter, referred to as “the property”) belonged to him and that the tenant is in occupation of the same by carrying on his tailoring business at a monthly rent of Rs.75/- and considering the location of the property and the cost of the building, which would be more than Rs.2,00,000/-, the building being a pucca RC terraced building and situated hardly 100 meters away from Thiruvaiyaru Bus Stand and few meters away from Thiruvaiyaru Ayyarappan Temple and as the building is located at South main street, it carries much value with respect to running of business and even a petty shop owner will easily earn more than Rs.3000/- per month and hence the landlord, considering the fact that the property would fetch rent more than Rs.2,000/- per month, sought for fixation of the fair rent in accordance with the rules and regulations set out in the Act. 5. 5. The case of the tenant in brief is that the tenant is in occupation of the property by carrying on tailoring business at a monthly rent of Rs.75/- and the landlord demanded higher rent and accordingly, the tenant had agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.150/- per month and accordingly, depositing the rent at the rate of Rs.150/- per month in the Bank as directed by the landlord without any arrears and the length and breadth of the property is 20’ x 10’ and the portion in the occupation of the property is less than ½ of the above mentioned extent and the present rent is the fair rent for the property and the reason put forth by the landlord for fixation of fair rent is not a bona fide reason and therefore, prays for the dismissal of the petition. 6. In support of the landlord’s case, P.Ws.1 to 4 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P3 have been marked and on the side of the tenant, R.W.1 has been examined and no document has been marked. That apart, Exs.C1 and C2 have also been marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Rent Controller was pleased to fix the fair rent at Rs.326/- per month and the Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the same. Impugning the said fair rent, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the tenant. 8. It is found that the Advocate Commissioner, who had been nominated to inspect the property has been examined as P.W.2 and his report has been marked as Ex.C1 and the Engineer, who had been deputed to assess the value of the property has been examined as P.W.3 and his report has been marked as Ex.C2. The petition has been laid by the landlord seeking for the fixation of fair rent for the property. The landlord’s case is that the property would fetch more than Rs.2,000/- per month as rent. Per contra, the tenant’s case is that the present rent at the rate of Rs.150/- is the fair rent for the property. The Engineer, who had inspected the property, had, taking into consideration all the materials noted by him, opined that the rent could be fixed at Rs.326/- per month. Per contra, the tenant’s case is that the present rent at the rate of Rs.150/- is the fair rent for the property. The Engineer, who had inspected the property, had, taking into consideration all the materials noted by him, opined that the rent could be fixed at Rs.326/- per month. It is found that the landlord has not placed any material worth acceptance other than Ex.C2 to fix the fair rent for the property on the higher side. As rightly determined by the Courts below, the evidence of the neighbour examined as P.W.4 and the document marked as Ex.P3 do not in any manner serve the case of the landlord. It is found that the property covered under Ex.P3 is not located adjacent to the property and the evidence of P.W.4 also found to be not reliable and acceptable by the Courts below and accordingly, no credence was attached to the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P3 to sustain the landlord’s case. Excluding those materials, it is found that we have only the evidence of the Advocate Commissioner and the Engineer and their reports marked as Exs.C1 and C2 respectively. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the location of the property, it is found and also not in dispute that the property is located in a commercial locality and therefore, it is found that it is a fit place for business. It is found that the Engineer has adopted the value of the property based on the guideline value and accordingly, fixed the value at Rs.69/- per sq. feet and thus, it is found by the Courts below that the value of the site considering its extent would come to Rs.9,419/- and as no material is placed to assess the age of the building, the Engineer had fixed the age at 25 years and accordingly, the value of the property after noting the depreciation value, was fixed at Rs.22,641/- and for the facilities available taking its value, the total value had been fixed at Rs.32,610/- and considering the building being a non-residential one, the 12% of the value is fixed as the fair rent per annum and consequently, the Engineer had fixed the monthly rent at Rs.326/-. The Courts below have rightly found that when there is no other acceptable material pointing that the report of the Engineer is wrong and further when the tenant has also not established by placing any material that the rent fixed by the Engineer is on the higher side, it is found that the Courts below have rightly accepted the Engineer’s report and accordingly, fixed the fair rent at Rs.326/- per month. In such view of the matter, it is found that the fair rent fixed by the Court below for the property is just and correct and hence, no interference is called for with reference to the same. 10. In conclusion, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 17.08.2006, passed in R.C.A.No.17 of 2005, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 27.04.2005, passed in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2001, on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, are confirmed. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.