Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4571 (MAD)

Arumugam Pillai v. R. Padmagirisan

2018-12-20

T.RAVINDRAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 27.03.2008, passed in R.C.A.No.12 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Dindigul, confirming and partly modifying the fair and decreetal orders, dated 08.03.2004, passed in R.C.O.P.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court/Rent Controller, Dindigul. 2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the petition property concerned in the rent control original petition. 3. The rent control original petition, in R.C.O.P.No.37 of 2001, has been laid by the respondent for fixing the fair rent of the petition property, on the footing that the petition property belonged to him and in the petition shop, the revision petitioner is a tenant and the monthly rent for the same had been determined at Rs.100/- in the rent control original proceedings initiated by the revision petitioner and further contending that the petition property is lying in a commercial area and in the prime locality and having various benefits as detailed in the petition and considering the extent of the petition property as well as the age of the building, according to the respondent, the petition property is worth more than Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly, praying that the fair rent should be fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month as he is also paying the tax to the Municipality at Rs.160/- per month for the petition property and inasmuch as the revision petitioner is only paying Rs.100/- towards rent, praying for the fixation of the fair rent, as above stated, laid the rent control original petition. 4. The revision petitioner resisted the respondent's case admitting that he is a tenant in respect of the petition property and the monthly rent is Rs. 4. The revision petitioner resisted the respondent's case admitting that he is a tenant in respect of the petition property and the monthly rent is Rs. 100/- as determined in the rent control original proceedings initiated by him and denied the case of the respondent that the petition property is ling in a prime locality and according to him, the petition building is more than 30 years old and on account of inflation, the market value of the property had declined and it is false to state that the value of the petition property is more than Rs.2,00,000/- as stated in the petition and there is no sale transaction in respect of the properties situated in and around the area, where the petition property is located and according to him, only to wreck vengeance, the petition has been laid by the respondent on having lost the rent control proceedings initiated by him against the revision petitioner and contending that the rent paid by him is a fair rent, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 5. Based on the materials placed on record of both sides, the Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,500/- per month, and the same had also been confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, however, directed that the above said fair rent is to be paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent from 01.04.2003 and accordingly, disposed of the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 6. Considering the materials placed on record, it is found that the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority had fixed the fair rent for the petition property, based on the guideline value, and not on the market value of the petition property. In this connection, it is found that reliance had been placed upon the Commissioner's report and plan marked as Exs.C1 and C2 as well as the Engineer's report marked as Ex.X1 and the evidence of P.W.3, a Technical Assistant of the Public Works Department. 7. In this connection, it is found that reliance had been placed upon the Commissioner's report and plan marked as Exs.C1 and C2 as well as the Engineer's report marked as Ex.X1 and the evidence of P.W.3, a Technical Assistant of the Public Works Department. 7. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, it is found that he and the Engineer had fixed the rent and for the same, they had obtained a report from the Sub-Registrar for the vacant land and thereby, had calculated the rent and accordingly, it is stated they had fixed the value of Rs.1,71,175/- and thereby, fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,712/-. During the course of cross-examination, it has been admitted by him that as regards the age of the building, particularly, for determining the age of the building as constructed in 1982, as put forth by the respondent, according to him, the same had been determined on the basis of the meter service card and also admitted that for fixing the value of the petition property, they had obtained the guideline value of the property from the Sub Registrar, as on 01.04.2003 and not obtained any report for the guideline value of the property as on 18.12.2001, when the petition had been preferred for fixation of the fair rent and further, admitted that they had not filed any report about the market value and the suggestion has also been put to him that the guideline value at that point of time is more than the market value and accordingly, it is found that the Authorities below had proceeded with the matter based on the report of the Engineer marked as Ex.X1 and as above noted, the report of the Engineer has been based on the guideline value obtained from the Sub-Registrar's Office as on 01.04.2003. Admittedly, the market value of the petition property has not been taken into consideration by ascertaining the same from the requisite documents at the relevant point of time and accordingly, the value of the building has also been determined as having been constructed in the year 1982, based on the electricity service connection provided in the property, in all, it is found that the Engineer had fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,712/-, however the Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,500/- per month. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also in tune with the findings of the Rent Controller confirmed the rent of the petition property at Rs.1,500/-, however, noting that the guideline value for ascertaining the same had been obtained as on 01.04.2003, accordingly, directed that the revision petitioner should pay the determined fair rent from 01.04.2003 to the respondent. 8. The main contention put forth by the revision petitioner's counsel is that the Authorities below had totally erred in squarely basing the decision upon the fair rent fixed by the Engineer in his report marked as Ex.X1 and the evidence of P.W.3, the Technical Assistant of the Public Works Department, and according to him, when the fair rent fixed by the Engineer, as reiterated in Ex.X1, is only based upon the guideline value of the petition property as on 01.04.2003, the determination of the Authority below and the fair rent on the basis of the same is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and in this connection, he placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in M/s.Sakthi and Company through its Partner Veeranan vs. Shree Desigachary, reported in (2006) 2 MLJ 295 (F.B.), wherein it has been held that for fixing the fair rent of the property, only the market value to be applied and the guideline value cannot be the basis for the fixation of the fair rent and also determined that the fixation of the fair rent on the basis of the guideline value or the valuation register summoned from the Sub-Registrar's Office or the Engineer is illegal and unsustainable in law and the position of law has been outlined as follows: “Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), Sec.5 – Fixation of fair rent of premises – Value of land – Guideline value or market value – Market value to be applied – Bona fide sales – Criterion – Guideline value in Basic Valuation Register – No statutory basis. In fixing the fair rent of the premises under Sec.4 of the Act, there was a difference of opinion between two Judges, whether the market value of the land should be fixed according to the guideline value as made in the Basic Valuation Register or the market value of property of comparative sales, reported in (1997) 3 L.W.193 and 1995 T.L.N.J.226. 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 there under in instrument brought for registration. 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 a basis to determine the market value. The fixation of market value on the basis of guideline value or valuation register summoned from the Sub-registrar's and the Engineer is illegal and unsustainable.” 9. In the light of the above position, when it is noted that the guideline value is maintained only for the purpose of collecting stamp duty and has no statutory base or force and cannot be the foundation for determining the market value of the property in question, accordingly, when as above discussed, the Courts below had based their determination of the fixation of the fair rent mainly upon Ex.X1 – Report of the Engineer and when Ex.X1 is based only upon the guideline value obtained from the Sub-Registrar's Office as on 01.04.2003, in all, it is seen that the fixation of the fair rent by the Authorities below cannot be countenanced at all. Furthermore, as above noted, even as regards the determination of the age of the building, no proper proof has been collected by the Engineer or placed for consideration by the respondent and the above said aspect of the matter is also found to have been not properly assessed and determined by the Authorities below. 10. In addition to that, when the fair rent has to be determined from the date of the petition, the Appellate Authority is found to have fixed the fair rent as on 01.04.2003, on the footing that the guideline value obtained from the Sub-Registrar's Office, with reference to the same, for the purpose of the fixation of the market value of the petition property has been obtained with effect from 01.04.2003. Thus, it is found that the Authorities below had proceeded the matter not in tune with the provisions of law, particularly, as outlined in the aforesaid Full Bench decision and in such view of the matter, the fixation of the fair rent by the Authorities below are liable to the set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the Rent Controller for fixing the fair rent of the petition property in accordance with law. 11. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned orders of the authorities below are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Rent Controller to re-determine the fair rent of the petition property by enabling the parties concerned to adduce further evidence in arriving at the market value based on the bona fide sales between the vendors and vendees of the lands and the property situated near about the petition property possessing the same or similar advantageous features during the relevant point of time. 12. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.