SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.
M/s.Fouress Engineering (India) (P) Limited, by its Manager
Versus
V.Krishnan
C.R.P.(NPD)No.244 of 2002 and C.M.P.No.2461 of 2003
Decided On : 12 May 2004

Advocates:
R.Balachander, for Petitioner.
A.Venkatesan, for Respondent.

Fixation of fair rent to be done on the basis of cost of building and amenities therein provided.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Rented property-Fixation of rent of non-residential building in commercial area-Held, Calculation of fair rent be done on the basis of cast incurred over construction of the building and basic amenities provided there in.

ORDER: The revision petitioner is the tenant and the revision is filed against the fair rent enhanced to Rs.23,435 per month by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by the tenant challenging the correctness of the fair rent fixed at Rs.18,648 per month.

2. The landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition for fixation of fair rent in respect of a portion in the first floor of the petition premises bearing No.805, Anna Salai, Madras-2 with separate and independent access from premises No.804, Anna Salai, Madras-2. It is stated in the petition that the contractual rent is Rs.2,500 per month. The tenant/revision petitioner is in occupation of a major portion of the first floor of the premises bearing No.805, Anna Salai, Madras consisting of one hall, two rooms, one reception room, one toilet, besides the exclusive staircase leading from the ground floor to the petition premises and the area in the occupation of the tenant is 2418 square feet and the exclusive staircase area is 212 square feet and in total 2630 square feet. The age of the building is 80 years, but it is to be taken as 60 years being the maximum for the purpose of computation of fair rent. The building is class ‘A’ type-I. The building is located in a very very highly commercial area and the bus-stands, colleges, banks, shops, hotels, etc., are located very near to the petition premises. Therefore, as per the calculation made in the petition, fair rent is to be fixed at Rs.37,249 per month.

3. The petition was opposed in the counter that the area in the occupation of the tenant is less than 2400 square feet and admitted that the staircase is used by the tenant to reach the rented portion in the first floor. The other factors in fixing the fair rent are denied.

4. The learned Rent Controller taking into consideration the evidence adduced on either side and Exs.P-1 and P-2 marked on the side of the landlord and Exs.R-1 to R-12 marked on the side of the tenant and also Ex.C-1, the guideline value, fixed the fair rent at Rs.18,648. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the matter was remitted back to the learned Rent Controller as per judgment dated 30.7.1999 to find out the market value of the petition premises after examining the parties in respect of the sale deeds which have been marked before the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller after such remand, considering the further evidence adduced by P.W.2, Junior Assistant working in the Sub Registrar Office, Thousand Light and the document Ex.P-3 sent for by the landlord, fixed the market value of the petition premises at Rs.1,617 per square feet and on that basis arrived the market value at Rs.38,80,800 per ground to the petition premises and submitted the same to the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the further evidence recorded by the learned Rent Controller, enhanced the fair rent at Rs.23,435. Against that judgment and decree, the tenant has preferred this civil revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant mainly argued as regards the age of the building fixed at 65 years by the learned Rent Controller and adopted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and as regards the market value adopted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in enhancing the fair rent at Rs.23,435. Further it is contended that the market value of the land arrived at Rs.38,80,800 per ground is not proper in view of the fact that it is not supported by evidence. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant also argued that in the appeal preferred by the tenant, the fair rent enhanced to Rs.23,435 per month from that of Rs.18,648 per month fixed by the learned Rent Controller is incorrect. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant placed



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top