SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. KANIA, K.N. SAIKIA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
Miss. Liza Arulanandam, Appellant
Versus
Smt. A.S. Sulochana, Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2228 of 1982, D/- 11-9-1990.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. Anant Palli and Mr. E.C. Agarwala Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. V. Balachandrann and Mr. K. Vijay Kumar Advocates, for Respondent.
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 - Section 4 and 5 – Rent control and Eviction – Fixation of Fair Rent - Tennant - Fixation of Fair Rent (1) Controller shall on application made by tenant or landlord of a building and after holding such enquiry as he thinks fit, fix fair rent for such building in accordance with the principles set out in following sub-sections - Fair rent for any residential building shall be nine per cent gross return per annum on the total cost of such building - Fair rent for any non-residential building shall be twelve per cent gross return per annum on total cost of such building - Total cost referred to in sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) shall consist of the market value of site in which building is constructed, cost of construction of the building and cost of provision of any one or more of amenities specified in Schedule I as on date of application for fixation of fair rent - Held, Thus we are clearly of view that ratio in Nambiars case (AIR 1970 SC 1656) no longer would apply - Subsequent amendment brought on statute in 1973, amplified date of application as staring point to fix market value - On basis of valuation of the building estimated by commissioner as per P.W. D. rates prevailing in area and evidence produced by the parties, Rent Controller as modified by High Court rightly determined fair rent - It is already seen that Sec. 4 prescribed principles on basis of which fair rent is to be fixed - In light of those principles evidence adduced by parties was considered by Controller, appellate court and High Court, found that fixation of fair rent is much in excess to claim made by landlady. Since landlady confined claim for Rs. 1,000/- per month, courts below have fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, findings of facts based on consideration of evidence, this court cannot interfere and come to its conclusion - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- The appellant/ tenant is in occupation of a double storeyed building bearing No. 100, Aiya Mudali Street, Chintadripet, Mount Road, Madras on a monthly rent of Rs. 170/-. The respondent landlady filed an application under Sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, or short the Act. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1,000/-per month. On appeal, the Court of Small Causes, Madras and on further Revision under Sec. 25, the Madras High Court confirmed the order. This appeal by special leave has been at the behest of the tenant. The admitted facts are that 1/3rd portion of the building is being used for residential and the rest for non-residential purpose namely, for running a school. It is of 50 years old. Section 4 of the Act provides the procedure for fixation of the fair rent, which reads thus:
"Fixation of Fair Rent (1) The Controller shall on application made by the tenant or the landlord of a building and after holding such enquiry as he thinks fit, fix the fair rent for such building in accordance with the principles set out in the following sub-sections.
(2) The fair rent for any residential building shall be nine per cent gross return per annum on the total cost of such building.
(3) The fair rent for any non-residential building shall be twelve per cent gross return per annum on the total cost of such building.
(4) The total cost referred to in sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) shall consist of the market value of the site in which the building is constructed, the cost of construction of the building and the cost of provision of any one or more of the amenities specified in Schedule I as on the date of application for fixation of fair rent;
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, non-residential building, twentyfive per cent, of the cost of site in which the building is constructed and the cost of construction of the building as determined under this Section."
"5. (a) The cost of construction of the building including cost of internal water supply, sanitary and electrical installations shall be determined with 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 pet cent of construction having regard to the nature of the building.
(b) The Controller shall deduct from the cost of construction determined in the manner specified in clause (a), depreciation, calculated at the rates specified in Schedule II."
2. A birds eye view of Sec. 4 indicates that the Controller shall hold an enquiry before fixing the fair rent preceded by an application made in that behalf either by the tenant or the landlord, in accordance with the principles set out in sub-sections (2) to (5) of Sec. 4. In case of a residential building the fair rent shall be 9 per cent and for non-residential building 12 per cent gross return per annum on the total cost of the building in question. The total cost shall consist of (a) market value of the site on which the building is constructed; (b) the cost of the construction of the building; and (c) the cost of provision of any one or more of the amenities specified in Schedule I which shall not exceed: (1) in the case of residential building 15 percent; and (2) in case of any non-residential building 25 per cent of the cost of the site in which the building was constructed as determined under Sec. 4 of the Act. The cost of the construction of the building would also include internal water supply, sanitary and electrical installations. The estimation of its ratio thereof shall be as is done by the Public Works Department of the Government for the area concerned. In addition to the above, having regard to the
inapplicable : K.C. Nambiar v. IV Judge of the court of Small Causes, Madras
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.