The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, particularly the definition of 'building' to include vacant land used for specific purposes, and the necessity of considering the entire area, including vacant land, for valuation in determining fair rent.

1. The deceased V. Balasubramaniam has filed R.C.O.P. No. 3 and 4 of 1990 before the learned District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Pollachi against The Secretary, Government of India, Mines and Petroleum, New Delhi and others. RCOP No. 3 of 1990 was filed under Section 10 (3) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as The Act for additional Accommodation. RCOP No. 4 of 1990 was filed under Section 4 of The Act, for fixation of fair rent. Even during the pendency of the Rent Control Original Petition, the said V. Balasubramaniam died and his legal heirs have been brought on record as Petitioners 2 to 7 in the Rent Control Original Petition, who are respondents 1 to 6 in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. It is contended by the landlord V. Balasubramaniam that originally the petition mentioned premises was let out to M/s. Caltex India Pvt Ltd by executing a lease deed dated 01.02.1972 for a period of five years for carrying on petroleum business which was subsequently taken over by the Government of India by virtue of Act 17 of 1977 read with notification No.G.S.R.963 (E) dated 30.12.1976 whereby the right and interest in the petition mentioned property was transferred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. On 25.01.1979, the lease was renewed with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation as per which the second respondent was given right to sub lease the premises in question to its dealers for carrying out petroleum business. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.550/-and it is payable for one full year in advance. According to the landlord V. Balasubramaniam, the rent at the rate of Rs.550/-was fixed 12 years back and it was not the fair rent as on the date of filing the Rent Control Original Petition. It is further contended that the petition mentioned premises is located in a thickly populated business locality in Pollachi near Gandhi Market. The Pollachi bus stand, hospitals, schools, Cotton Mills and Automobile shops are situated on both side of the petition mentioned premises. A lorry stand is situated just few yards away from the petition mentioned premises. There are also cinema halls, lodging houses, hotels and other commercial establishments situate just near the Petition Mentioned Premises. It is further contended that the petition mentioned premises measures 8 X 10 feet and the walls have been constructed with brick and lime mortar together with RCC roofing. All the four sides of the premises are fitted with glass panes. There are two tanks constructed under ground, one meant for petrol and other for diesel measuring 20 X 20 feet each. According to the landlord, the market value of per square feet of vacant land in the locality costs more than Rs.500/-and considering the same, the rent can be fixed reasonably. The landlord had demanded enhanced rent repeatedly but the same was not agreed to by the Corporation. The deceased landlord also issued a notice on 12.07.1989 claiming enhanced rent for which a reply dated 18.09.1989 was issued containing false and frivolous reasons. It is further contended that the petition mentioned premises is bonafide required for additional accommodation of the landlord and therefore the tenants may be directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition mentioned premises. Simultaneously, the deceased landlord has also filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking enhancement of the rent.

3. The Rent Control Original Petitions were contested by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation contending that the lease deed dated 25.01.1979 does not envisage fixation of fair rent under the provisions of the Act. The Corporation is entitled to continue the business of petrol and diesel retail outlet until the landlord chooses to dispose of the property, in which event, the Corporation has pre-emptive right to purchase the same and continue to run the business. The Corporation further contends that it had made improvements to the value of more than Rs.21,720