Back
2012 Supreme(SC) 457
2012 (4) Supreme 561
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi & Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
V.S. Kanodia Etc. Etc. — Appellants
versus
A.L.Muthu (D) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5218-22 of 2012 (Arising Out of Slp (C) No.20550-20554 of 2008)
Decided on : 16-07-2012
Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent (Control) Act, 1960- Section 4 -Fixation of fair rent- Appellants tenants of three premises of which respondents were the landlords -Appeals against order passed by High Court whereby Revision Petitions preferred by appellant tenant were dismissed-Grievance of appellant-tenant that valuation of land as was determined in respect of 1st property @ Rs.25/- lakhs per ground but same had. not been taken into consideration for determination of fair rent of petition building- Rent Controller by judgment determined the market fair rent of first premises on accepting the market value of the land at Rs.25 lakhs per ground.- With regard to rest two rented premises, building were situated on the adjacent land - Mere fact that appeal filed by appellants and respondents remained pending for disposal for more than 8 years and during the pendency the respondent-landlord filed two petitions under Section 4 of the Act before the Rent Controller, could not be made a ground to deprive the appellants-tenants of their legitimate right to rely on a market value of adjacent land already determined by the Rent Controller- High Court failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact though it was a fit case for the High Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India-Impugned judgments of Appellate Authority as affirmed by High Court, so far as it related to “market value of the land” was concerned, set aside- Appeals, remitted to appellate authority for determination of limited issue relating to the market value of land on which the building premises was situated taking into consideration market value of the adjacent land as determined by Rent Controller –Appeals partly allowed (Paras 15 to 17)
Facts of the Case :
Present Appeals have been filed against order passed by High Court whereby Revision Petitions preferred by appellant tenant were dismissed.Grievance of appellant-tenant was that valuation of land as was determined in respect of 1st property @ Rs.25/- lakhs per ground but same had not been taken into consideration for determination of fair rent of petition building.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that mere fact that appeal filed by appellants and respondents remained pending for disposal for more than 8 years and during the pendency the respondent-landlord filed two petitions under Section 4 of the Act before the Rent Controller, could not be made a ground to deprive the appellants-tenants of their legitimate right to rely on a market value of adjacent land already determined by the Rent Controller. Impugned judgments of Appellate Authority as affirmed by High Court, so far as it related to “market value of the land” was concerned, set aside. Appeals were remitted to appellate authority for determination of limited issue relating to the market value of land on which the building premises was situated taking into consideration market value of the adjacent land as determined by Rent Controller .Appeals were partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.-Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred against a common order dated 28th April, 2008 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby Revision Petition Nos. 323, 324, 615, 616 and 3347 of 2007 preferred by appellant were dismissed.
2. The appellants are tenant whereas respondents are the landlord of tenanted building. Initially, the dispute related to non-residential premises situated in Chennai, namely, (i) 2nd and 3rd floors of the building at D.No.23, TTK Road, (Mowbray’s Road), Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as 1st property) (ii) 2nd floor of the front and rear building at 22, TTK Road, (Mowbray’s Road), Chennai-18 (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd property) and (iii) ground floor of the front and rear and 1st floor rear of the building at 22, TTK Road, (Mowbray’s Road), Chennai-18 (hereinafter referred to as the 3rd property) but in these appeals, we are concerned with the rent fixed in respect to 2nd and 3rd property situated at 22, TTK Road, (Mowbray’s Road), Chennai-18
3. In respect of 1st property at D.No.23, TTK Road, Chennai, the contractual rent was Rs. 6210/- per month, which was increased to Rs. 18,847/- by an order passed by Small Causes Court, Chennai on 28.6.1996 in RCOP NO.; 1046 of .1994 in a petition filed by respondent-landlord under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent (Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the said case, for determination of fair rent, market value of the land was assessed @ Rs.25 lakhs per ground. The appellant-tenant has preferred an appeal against the said order in RCA No. 557/2004 and another appeal has been preferred by respondent-landlord in RCA No. 1196/1996 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Small Causes Court) Chennai.
4. In respect of 2nd and 3rd property situated at 22, TTK Road, Chennai-18, the respondent-landlord filed two separate petitions under Section 4 of the Act for fixing the monthly rent of respective portions, registered as RCOP No. 1176 and 1177/1997. After hearing the parties, those petitions were determined by Rent Controller by a common judgment and decree dated 28.9.2004 whereby fair monthly rent of the properties were fixed at Rs. 46,422/- and Rs.95,220/-respectively, after taking into consideration the market value of land @ Rs.50 lakhs per ground.
5. Against the aforesaid common judgment, both the respondent-landlord and appellant-tenant preferred appeals in RCA No. 1393, 1394, 1404 and 1405 of 2004. After taking into consideration the relevant evidence and submission of parties, by a common order and judgment dated 14.10.2006 the appellate authority, (8th Judge) Small Causes Court, Chennai fixed the monthly rent at Rs. 58,329/- and Rs. 1,21,877/- respectively, allowing the appeal preferred by landlord and dismissing the appeals preferred by tenant. The rent was fixed on the basis of valuation of land @ Rs.65 lakhs per ground. Against the aforesaid order, the Revision petitions preferred by appellant-tenant were dismissed by the impugned common judgment dated 28.4. 2008.
6. Before the Courts below, the respondent-landlord took plea that the appellant-tenant had been on the front portion of the ground floor for 43 years and in the rear side portion of the ground floor and also at the rear side portion of the 1st floor and rear side portion of the 2nd floor for the past 17 years and in the front portion for the past 16 years. The petition building comes under Class I building with R.C.C. roofing and all the three basic amenities are available. The plinth area of the front portion of the ground floor is 1719 sq. ft., and the rear portion is 1766 sq. ft. and the lumber portion is 341 sq. ft., latrine portion is 136 sq.ft., G.I. Sheet portion is 300 sq. ft. and on the 1st floor rear side portion is 1766 sq. ft., Latrine portion is 121 sq. ft. and on the 2nd floor the front portion is 1800 sq. ft. and the rear portion is 1766 sq. ft. and that the plint
