Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
T.H.S. Rahmath Fathima
Versus
T.K. Kader Mohideen
C.R.P. Nos. 4673 & 4674 of 1987
Decided On :Decided On : 07-10-1994
FAIR RENT - FIXATION - FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS - RELEVANCE OF SALE DEED AS EVIDENCE - PROOF OF CONTENTS OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS - JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PROPERTY VALUE - COST OF CONSTRUCTION - GUIDELINES UNDER RENT CONTROL ACT - JUDICIAL PRECEDENT - REMAND FOR FRESH DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Landlady filed revisions challenging the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority for two adjoining commercial premises in Madras. The Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent at Rs. 692/- and the Appellate Authority reduced it to Rs. 508/-. The landlady contended that the fair rent should be fixed at Rs. 1085/- based on the market value of the land and the cost of construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Appellate Authority's order was not based on legal evidence and set it aside. The court found that the landlady failed to prove the market value of the land through a sale deed (Ex. P-5) as it was a private document and required further evidence to establish its contents. The court also held that the cost of construction fixed by the authorities below was not supported by legal evidence and relied on a precedent (C.R.P. Nos. 708, 709, and 2698 to 2701 of 1985) to determine the reasonable cost of construction.
Issues: 1. Whether the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority was based on legal evidence. 2. Whether the landlady proved the market value of the land through Ex. P-5. 3. Whether the cost of construction fixed by the authorities below was reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Appellate Authority's order was not based on legal evidence because: - The landlady failed to prove the market value of the land through Ex. P-5 as it was a private document and required further evidence to establish its contents. - The cost of construction fixed by the authorities below was not supported by legal evidence and the court relied on a precedent to determine the reasonable cost of construction. 2. The court held that the landlady failed to prove the market value of the land through Ex. P-5 because: - A sale deed between private parties is a private document and requires further evidence to prove its contents. - The landlady did not examine any person connected with Ex. P-5 to prove its contents. 3. The court held that the cost of construction fixed by the authorities below was not reasonable because: - The Rent Controller relied on the oral evidence of a witness without considering the P.W.D. rates as guidelines. - The Appellate Authority set aside the Rent Controller's finding regarding the excess of 25% granted for the nature of the building without any basis.
Final Decision: The court allowed the landlady's revisions, set aside the orders of the authorities below, and remitted the case back to the Rent Controller for taking a decision afresh. The parties were at liberty to adduce evidence afresh, and the Rent Controller was directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
1. Both these Revisions are by, the landlady in proceedings for fixation of fair rent.
2. C.R.P. No. 4673 of 1987 arises from R.C.O.P. No. 2050 of 1984 before the Small Causes Court of Madras. The subject matter of the proceedings is premises No. 39 (Old No. 70), Mannadi Street, Madras-1. Against the order of fixation of fair rent, the landlady filed R.C.A. No. 116 of 1987, and the tenants filed R.C.A. 819 of 1986. Against the decision in R.C.O.P. No. 2059 of 1984, the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 860 of 1986 and the landlady filed R.C.A. No. 117 of 1987.
3. The agreed rent in C.R.P. No. 4673 of 1987 is Rs. 350/- and in the other case it is Rs. 300/-. They are adjoning rooms having more of less the same plinth area and part of the same building.
4. In both these cases, the petitioners wanted the fair rent to be fixed at Rs. 1085/- According to her, the building is situated in a busy commercial locality of George Town, namely, Mannadi and Broadway, in the city of Madras, which is a place with heavy traffic, and due to situation and location of the premises, it will fetch a very high price. According to her, the land value on the date of the application will be not less than Rs. 3 lakhs per ground. In both the cases, the tenant is occupying an area of 770 sq. ft.
5. In both the petitions, both the tenants are different. They have taken more or less the same contention. They wanted the fair rent to be fixed at Rs. 399/-.
6. The Rent Controller, after taking evidence, held that the market value of the land will be Rs. 2 lakhs per ground. For the purpose of fixing the market value, the landlady relied on Ex. P5, a sale deed in the same locality. The same was not acted upon by the Rent Controller for two reasons. (1) It is away from the demised premises, and (2) The document was not proved. The tenants case that the market value will be only Rs. 80,000/- per ground, was also not accepted by the Rent Controller.
7. Regarding the cost of construction, the Rent Controller found that as per the P.W.D. rate, it will be Rs. 53.95p. For the said purpose, he relied on the oral evidence of R.W. 1. He also gave 25p. increase, taking into consideration the nature of the building. The Rent Controller also found that the age of the building is not 9 years as claimed by the landlady, but was 15 years as contended by the tenant. After calculating the value for the above purpose, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 692/-. Both the landlord and the tenants were aggrieved by the order and they took the matter is appeal to the Appellate Authority.
8. The Appellate Authority found that the cost of construction is Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. The market value of the land was reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The 25% excess granted by the Rent Controller was also set aside. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority reduced the fair rent to Rs. 508/-. The reduction made by the Appellate Authority is the subject matter in this Revision.
9. The tenants have not filed any Revision.
10. The question that has to be considered is, whether the fair rent fixed by the Appellat Authority is correct, or whether it is liable to be interfered with.
11. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the landlady is that both the Authorities below have not considered Ex. P-5, the sale deed executed between two strangers, in a nearby locality. According to him, Ex. P-5 represents the market value in that area. Even though the landlady has stated that during the relevant time the market value per ground in that area was Rs. 11 lakhs, the transaction under Ex. P-5 shows that the property has been sold at Rs. 8 lakhs per ground. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlady, is a material piece of evidence, which the Authorities below have failed to take into consideration.
12. According to the learned counsel, Ex. P-5, even though a certified copy, is a copy of document, and hence no further evidence is required to prove the same. He als
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
