Cost of land to be necessary apportioned between two floors of the building.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 7.11.2001, made in R.C.A.No.2/2000 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pondicherry (Principal District Court, Pondicherry), confirming the order dated 22.9.1998 in H.R.C.O.P.No.32/1994, on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry.)

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 7.11.2001, made in R.C.A.No.2/2000 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pondicherry (Principal District Court, Pondicherry), confirming the order dated 22.9.1998 in H.R.C.O.P.No.32/1994, on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry.

2. The tenant has filed the above revision petition.

3. RCOP No.32/1994 was filed by the landlady against the tenant which is a nationalised bank, under Sec.5(1) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1969 hereinafter called 'the Act', to fix fair rent for the schedule property at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. The rent controller by order dated 22.9.1998 fixed the fair rent at Rs.5,675/- per month payable from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the order of the rent controller, the tenant/bank filed RCA No.2/2000 and the appellate authority by its order dated 7.11.2001 confirmed the order of the rent controller by fixing fair rent at Rs.5,675/- per month. Against such concurrent findings of the authorities below fixing the fair rent at Rs.5,675/- per month, the above revision petition has been filed by the tenant/bank under Sec.25 of the Act, 1969.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents and the judgments referred to by them filed in support of their submissions.

5. Though a number of grounds have been raised in the revision petition, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the cost of the land arrived at by both the courts below at Rs.2,80,675/- is obviously wrong. Learned counsel submitted that as there are two floors in the building, the value of the land should have been apportioned between the two floors and if so apportioned, the cost of the land should have been 50% of Rs.2,80,675/-, ie., Rs.1,40,335/- only. If the cost of the land is taken as Rs.1,40,335/-, then the fair rent should be fixed at Rs.4,272/- per month instead of Rs.5,675/- per month as wrongly fixed by the authorities below.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:

1) 1968-I M.L.J. 410=(81) L.W. 196}(A.C.Charities v. M/s.S.Aushadhalaya)

2) 1972-II M.L.J. 446 (Rainbow Electric Supply Corpn. v. Chenchuramiah)

3) 1969-I M.L.J. 101 (Sivagnanam v. Everest ;Boarding and lodging)

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady submitted that both the authorities below fixed the fair rent which need not be interfered with, under the revisional jurisdiction of this court.

8. In 1968-I M.L.J. 410 (81 L.W. 196) this court held that in the case of building having two floors, the market value of the land for the first floor will be half and if there are more than two storeys, it will be proportionately distributed in accordance with the number of storeys in the building.

9. 1972-II M.L.J. 446 (cited supra), this court held as follows:

"16. The extent of the ground floor is 2207 sq. feet while in the first floor, the built up area, is 950 sq. feet. Though the building in question is partly residential and partly non-residential, the courts below have found that it is predominantly non-residential and we will have to proceed on this basis. Ramaprasada Rao, J., in S.Attendrooloo Chetty's Charities by its President and Trustee S.Venkatarangam and others v. Messrs Saddana Aushadhalaya by its proprietor Naresh Chandra Ghosh (1968)81 L.W.196, held that fixation of fair rent for the site value in an application under section 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961, in the case of buildings having more than one floor, ought to be one of apportionment in