Principles for fixation of fair rent and determination of the cost of the construction.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. These two Revisions arise out of proceedings for fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The landlord in the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2081 of 1984 and the tenant is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3423 of 1983. The Premises demised is situated at new door No. 250, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras. The agreed rent was Rs. 8,000/-per month. The landlord claimed for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 3,760 per month. The tenant would not adhere to the agreed rent and would say that the fair rent only comes to Rs. 1,350. The Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,337/- per month. Both the landlord and tenant appealed and the Appellate Authority found no warrant to differ from the decision of the Controller and dismissed both the Appeals. Thus, the landlord and the tenant are obliged to prefer these Revisions.

2. The first aspect canvassed both by the learned Advocate General appearing for the landlord and the learned Counsel appearing for the tenant related to the land value. Learned Advocate General appearing for the landlord would submit that as per Ex.P-4 the valuation done by the Wealth-tax Department even as early as 14-11-1974, the land value came to Rs. 1,80,000 per ground, and the area concerned is 1 ground and 495 sq.ft. and both the Controller and the Appellate Authority, without any acceptable reason, declined to go by this valuation adding on proportionate increases on account of passage of time. As against this Mr. Udairaj Gulecha, learned Counsel for the tenant, would submit that Ex.B-7 dated 14-10-1982, which is a registration copy of a sale deed of a property in Thambu Chetty Street must be taken as a guideline for fixing the value of the land at Rs. 75,000 per ground. The Appellate Authority has not disputed the position that the value of the sites are increasing day by day. Even otherwise, this is a position which one could not lose sight of. The appellate authority has proceeded that Ex.P-4 contains combined value of both the land and the building. This is total misconception. Ex.P.4 gives the value of the land separately. Hence, the thinking of the Appellate Authority cannot be upheld. The appellate Authority has not accepted Ex.R.7 relied on by the tenant. Yet, the Appellate Authority would choose to concur with the decision of the Controller with regard to the value of the land. On going through the common judgment of the Appellate Authority. I get a first impression that the question with regard to the value of land has been adjudicated upon by the Appellate Authority in a most summary and a cursory manner without reference to the actual figures available as per Ex.P.4. As already pointed out, there has got to be a proportionate enhancement taking note of the passage of time.

3. Coming to the cost of construction, learned Advocate General appearing for the landlord would make two submissions. One is that the Appellate Authority has not discussed the evidence placed by the parties on the question of special amenities, and on the other hand, after merely referring to the respective cases, put forth by them, has come to an abrupt conclusion that there is no warrant for allowing thirty per cent of the cost of construction for special amenities. There is the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the existence of roller shutters and granolithio flooring. Of course, there is contra evidence on behalf of the tenant. But, significantly, there is no advertence to the evidence placed in the case, by the Appellate Authority and as rightly contended by the learned Advocate General, appearing for the landlord, the conclusion of the Appellate Authority is not supported by any proper reasoning and not proceeded by discussion of the evidence placed in the case. The second submission of the learned Advocate General appearing for the landlord is that even though the landlord claimed the cost of construction at particular rate,