Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
SRINIVASAN
S.A.S. Rahmath Nisha Begum
Versus
S. Vijayakumar
C.R.P. No. 4845 of 1987 & C.R.P. No. 1234 of 1989
Decided On :Decided on: 04-03-1994
RENT CONTROL - FAIR RENT - FIXATION - VALUE OF LAND - AGE OF BUILDING - AMENITIES - COST OF CONSTRUCTION - PRINCIPLES - TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT (23 OF 1973), S. 4.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landlady, filed a petition under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, for fixation of fair rent of a non-residential building. The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 396/- per mensem. On appeal by both parties, the rent was increased to Rs. 514/- per mensem by the appellate authority. The landlady and the tenant filed revisions challenging the orders of the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the value of the land should have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground, as per the evidence adduced in the case. The age of the building was to be adopted as 60 years, as done in the courts below. The amenities were to be fixed at 20%, as granted by the courts below. The cost of construction was to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. ft., as per the evidence of the tenant's engineer and the Mini Technical Hand Book issued by the Public Works Department.
Issues: 1. Whether the value of the land was correctly fixed by the lower courts? 2. Whether the age of the building was correctly determined by the lower courts? 3. Whether the amenities were correctly fixed by the lower courts? 4. Whether the cost of construction was correctly determined by the lower courts?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the value of the land should have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground, as per the evidence adduced in the case, including the sale deed of an adjacent property and the analysis of the value of the land and building by the landlady's engineer. 2. The High Court held that the age of the building was to be adopted as 60 years, as done in the courts below, as there was no acceptable evidence to interfere with the findings of the lower courts. 3. The High Court held that the amenities were to be fixed at 20%, as granted by the courts below, as there was no material to interfere with the conclusion of the court below on this ground. 4. The High Court held that the cost of construction was to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. ft., as per the evidence of the tenant's engineer and the Mini Technical Hand Book issued by the Public Works Department.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the landlady's revision petition to the extent indicated above and dismissed the tenant's revision petition. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
1. These two revisions arise out of an application filed by the petitioner in CRP. No. 4845 of 1987, who is referred to herein as, “landlady” for fixation of their rent, under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The agreed rent was Rs. 225/- per mensem. The landlady claimed a sum of Rs. 750/- as fair rent and filed a petition. The tenant opposed the same. The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 396/- per mensem. On appeal by both parties, the rent was increased to Rs. 514/- per mensem by the appellate authority. These two revisions before me are filed by the landlady and the tenant, as both are aggrieved.
3. The property is situate in Triplicane High Road, now known as Quaid-e-millath Salai. It is a non-residential building of an extent of 702 sq. ft. The landlady disputes the findings of the authorities below, on four matters: (1) value of the land (2) age of the building (3) value of amenities and (4) cost of construction. I will deal with them, one by one.
4. Regarding the value of the land, the claim of the landlady is that the market rate of lands in the area is Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground and the authorities should have fixed at that rate. She produced Ex. P3, sale deed of an adjacent property, dated 26.12.1981. The property dealt with in that sale deed comprises of a building and land. The Rent Controller fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per ground whereas the Appellate Authority fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per ground. The tenant has not filed any documentary evidence. The landlady examined one engineer on her side as P.W. 1 whereas the tenant also examined an engineer as R.W. 2. The Rent Controller referred to Ex. P3 wherein the annual value mentioned is Rs. 5,460/-. He has multiplied it by 20 times, and held that the value comes to about Rs. 1,00,000/- He has also referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 and observed that the said witness had admitted the value of the land and building at Rs. 1,00,000/- and above. The Rent Controller however overlooked that the annual value mentioned in Ex. P3. is only with reference to the extent of land as set out in that document, viz., 405 sq. ft. It for an extent of 405 sq. ft., the annual rental value is Rs. 5,460/-, it is argued by learned counsel for the landlady then, for an extent of 702 sq. ft., the value must be much more than Rs. 1,20,000/- as fixed by the Rent Controller. No doubt, there is considerable force in the argument. But the Appellate Authority has fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per ground. The Appellate Authority has referred to Ex. P4, a statement prepared by the landladys engineer, analysing the value of the land and building in Ex. P3. As per that statement, the value of the land per ground works out to Rs. 2,86,000/-. But the value adopted by the engineer for the petition property is only Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground. The Appellate Authority has proceeded to observe that the Rent Controller was in error in fixing the value at Rs. 1,20,000/- per ground, but arbitrarily fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- per ground. The basis for fixing at Rs. 2,00000/- without accepting either the value adopted by the landlady or the value evident from Ex. P3, is not disclosed. In the circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the landlady that the value of the land should have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground, is well-founded. In so far as the evidence adduced in this case is concerned, the only reliable evidence is the document under Ex. P3 and as analysed by the landladys Engineer, the rate is Rs. 2,86,000/- per ground. In the circumstances, I accept the contention of the landlady and fix the value of the petition land at the rate of Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground.
5. With reference to the age of the building, the landladys engineer has estimated the age or the building at 40 ye
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
