Order:- These two revision petitions have been filed by one and the same person. He has challenged the orders of the Court of Small Causes, Madras fixing the rental value of the petitioner’s premises No. 5D|1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Madras at Rs. 525 and for premises No. 5D|2, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Madras at Rs. 1,350 for the second half year 1970-1971.

2. The rental values of premises Nos. 5D|1 and 5D|2 were ordinarily fixed by the Commissioner of Corporation of Madras, at Rs. 867 and Rs. 2,232 respectively. On appeal to the Taxation Appeals Committee these rental values were reduced to Rs. 650 and Rs. 1,700, respectively. On further appeal to the Court of Small Causes, Madras, the rental values had been reduced to Rs. 525 and Rs. 1,350, respectively. In these revisions the basis adopted for fixing the rental value has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the fair rent payable in respect of the buildings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act should alone form the basis, and in support of this stand reliance is placed on certain decisions of the Supreme Court.

3. In respect of premises No. 5D|1, the value had been fixed on the basis of the actual rent paid by the lessee of the property who is running a lodging house. In respect of the other premises No. 5D/2, the actual rents received by the petitioner had been ignored and the rent the building is likely to fetch if let to a hypothetical tenant was taken as the basis and the rent that will be paid by a hypothetical tenant has been determined by the Taxation Appeals Committee with reference to the accommodation available, the locality in which the building is situate and the nonresidential purpose for which the building has been put to.

4. The contention of the petitioner as regards Door No. 5D|2 is that the actual rent received by the petitioner who is the owner of the premises should be taken into account and that the actual rent is only Rs. 625 per month. The lower Court had however expressed the view that the lease deed had not been produced, that it was not known when the building was actually let, that the building is a two-storeyed one, that there are 17 double rooms, one washing room, verandahs, common passage, bath room and F.O.L. in the premises and that having regard to the fact that a lodging house is run in the premises, it will equally fetch a monthly rent between Rs. 400 to Rs. 800 for each floor. It is on this basis the lower Court has fixed Rs. 1,350 as the rental value for this building.

5. It is the petitioners’ contention that the rental value of the buildings can be determined only by determining. the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller or if no fair rent has been fixed by him, by determining the fair rent on the basis of the relevant provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In support of this contention strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the following decisions of the Supreme Court. In Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi1, it was held that on a fair reading of section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, the annual rent could not be fixed higher than the standard rent fixed under the Rent Control Act. After quoting a passage from a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Bengal Nagpur Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta2, showing that a hypothetical tenancy of an improbable character was not contemplated, the Supreme Court expressed:

“The word ‘reasonably’ in the section throws further light on this interpretation. The word ‘reasonably’ is not capable of precise definition. ‘Reasonable, ‘signifies ‘in accordance with reason’. In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact. Whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. A bargain between a willing lessor and a willing lessee uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances may afford a guiding test

Click Here to Read the rest of this document