Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
S.Jayarama Pandian - Petitioner
Vs.
J.Rathina Singh - Respondent
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3034 of 2013
Decided on : 02.07.2015
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.Chidambaram
For the Respondent: Mr. D.Benington
The main legal point established is that the fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is to be calculated based on the building's value and land cost, and the tenant's claims must be substantiated with evidence.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Fair Rent Fixation - Section 4, Section 8(5), Section 9(3), Section 25 - The court discussed the fair rent petition filed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and the tenant's contentions under Section 8(5) and Section 9(3) regarding the maintainability of the fair rent petition. The court also considered the tenant's claims related to the initial rent, repairs, and advance payment, and the calculation of fair rent based on the building's value and land cost.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant resisted the fair rent claim, citing negligence of the landlord's legal heirs, dispute over property title, and his interest in purchasing the property. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.20,272 per month, which was reduced to Rs.18,363 per month by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The tenant challenged the fair rent fixation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant's contentions regarding the maintainability of the fair rent petition, property dispute, and his entitlement to benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act were not sustainable. The court rejected the tenant's claims of freezing the rent, permanent tenancy, and advance payment, and upheld the fair rent fixation at Rs.18,363 per month.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the fair rent petition, property dispute, tenant's entitlement to benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act, freezing of rent, and fair rent calculation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fair rent petition was maintainable, the tenant's claims were not sustainable, and the fair rent was correctly calculated based on the building's value and land cost.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the fair rent fixation at Rs.18,363 per month was upheld.
The present civil revision petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the decree of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) dated 04.07.2013 passed in R.C.A.No.157/2011. The tenant in the R.C.O.P.No.243 of 2009 before the Rent Controller (XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) is the petitioner in the present revision. The respondent in the revision is the landlord.
2. Contending that the monthly rent for the petition premises was Rs.2,500/-and a sum of Rs.5,000/-had been paid by the revision petitioner/tenant as advance and claiming that the said contractual rent was much less than the market rent, the respondent herein/landlord filed a petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent for the petition premises at Rs.25,000/-per month. The same was taken on file as R.C.O.P No.243 of 2009.
3. The revision petitioner herein/tenant resisted the claim of fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs.25,000/-per month on the following contentions:
i) The revision petitioner became a tenant under K.M.Balasubramaniam. After the demise of K.M.Balasubramaniam, his wife Valliammal was receiving the rent and the said Valliammal neglected and failed to receive the rent from the revision petitioner/tenant. Hence the revision petitioner/tenant was constrained to file a petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in R.C.O.P.No.375/2008.
ii) Only after the filing of the said case before the Rent Controller, the revision petitioner/tenant came to know that the respondent herein (landlord) had purchased the property from the said Valliammal on 21.11.2007. However, one Mrs.G.Revathy wife of K.B.Saravanan claimed half of the rent and she filed a suit on the Original Side of the High Court in C.S.No.46/2008. In view of the dispute among the legal heirs of Balasubramaniam, the revision petitioner filed another petition in R.C.O.P.No.92/2009 before the Rent Controller (XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In the said circumstances, without settling the dispute among the legal heirs of Balasubramaniam, the RCOP filed by the respondent herein (landlord) for fixation of fair rent was not maintainable.
iii) The revision petitioner was interested in purchasing the petition premises, as he was entitled to the benefit under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. Without considering the revision petitioner's claim to purchase the property, Mrs. Valliammal had sold the property to the respondent. Such a sale was improper in the eye of law.
iv) The revision petitioner became a tenant initially for a monthly rent of Rs.600/-and the same was gradually increased to Rs.1,500/-. He had also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-as rental advance cum security to K.M. Balasubramaniam, the original landlord. With the permission of K.M. Balasubramaniam, the revision petitioner also effected repairs and put up graders for supporting the wall of the building and for the said purpose he incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/-on the assurance of K.M. Balasubramaniam, the then landlord, that the rent would not be increased from Rs.1,500/-per month and that the revision petitioner would not be evicted.
v) The amount of Rs.25,000/-claimed by the respondent herein/landlord as fair rent was highly excessive and arbitrary.
Based on the above said contentions, the revision petitioner/tenant prayed for the dismissal of the fair rent petition filed as R.C.O.P.No.243 of 2009.
4. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller, by order dated 11.02.2011 rejected the defence plea of the revision petitioner/tenant regarding the maintainabi
