Principle of appointment of building having more than one floor.

The landlords in the former case and the landlady in the latter case are the petitioners, being dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act, in the matter of the fixation of fair rent for the portions in the occupation of their respective tenants, have come up to this Court to revise the order of the appellate authority.

In C.R.P. No. 551 of 1965, the petitioners are the Board of Trustees in management of S. Attendrooloo Chetti’s Charities. The tenant is Sadhana Aushadhalaya, occupying the ground floor of premises No. 17-A, Broadway, Madras. The landlord filed an application under section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent for the portion in its occupation which consists of an office hall and a bathroom-cum-dressing room with other amenities therein. The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 300. The appeal by the landlords was dismissed by the appellate authority. The landlords having come up in revision, have rested their contentions on the following two grounds: (1) the apportionment of the value of the site between the first and the second floors of the building is not strictly in accordance with law and (2) the ten per cent, provided by the Courts below as and towards amenities is too low and they are entitled to the maximum of 25 per cent.

In C.R.P. No. 632 of 1965 the main contentions are (1) the Court below has no jurisdiction to reduce the rent which the premises was already fetching, while enquiring into a petition for fixation of fair rent, and (2) the apportionment of the value of the site in equal proportions between the first and the second floors is not in accordance with law.

It may be noted that the petitioners before me did raise in the grounds of revision many other contentions. But they are purely factual in nature and findings of fact having been rendered by the Courts below on such other points raised in the grounds of revision. I am unable to interfere with the same. In fact, they were not even seriously pressed before me. I am therefore considering the most important question as to whether the apportionment of the value of the site on which the entirety of the building stands between the two floors of the building is a principle which is correct. In C.R.P. No. 551 of 1965 Sri P. Venkatasawami, learned Counsel for the petitioners, also stressed before me that the ten per cent, provided for as and towards amenties as against the maximum statutory percentage of 25 is inequitable and has to be reconsidered.

Section 4 of the Act lays down the principles for the fixation of fair rent. It also prescribes certain other guiding rules as well for the ultimate quantification of such fair rent. Whether the premises is a residential building or a non-residential building, it is imperative, while arriving at the total cost of the building, to take into consideration the market value of that portion of the site on which the residential or non-residential building is constructed. In the case of a residential building six per cent, gross return per annum on the total cost of the building shall be deemed to be the fair rent. In the case of non-residential building nine per cent, gross return per annum on the total cost of the building shall be deemed to be the fair rent. As I have stated, the total cost referred to in section 4 (2) (a) and 4 (3) (a) of the Act, includes the actual cost of construction which again has to be arrived at in accordance with the guiding rules and principles laid down in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It should also be noted that additional allowances can also be made for considerations such as the locality in which the building is situate, features of architectual interest, accessibility to market, nearness to railway station or educational institution and such other amenities as may be prescribed; in the case of a non-residential building, the purpose for which a nonresidentia