Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
New Century Book House Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Vs.
R.J. Ravindranath @ Ravi Kapoor & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 1333 & 1334 of 2007 and C.M.P. Nos. 12480 & 14089 of 2018 & M.P. No. 1 of 2007
Decided On : 23-08-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. E.M. Sudharsana Nachiappan, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.P. Ashok.
The main legal point established is the interpretation of the co-owners' rights and the validity of the settlement in rent control proceedings.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Fair Rent - 1963 Act, Section 25 - 1997 Act, Section 30 - 2004 Act, Section 25 - Summary: The court discussed the fair rent for a commercial property and the ownership rights of the co-owners. The key legal provisions of the 1963 Act, Section 25, the 1997 Act, Section 30, and the 2004 Act, Section 25 were interpreted to determine the fair rent and the locus standi of the co-owners in initiating rent control proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent filed a petition for fixation of fair rent for a commercial property. The revision petitioner resisted, claiming that the first respondent was not a co-owner in exclusive charge and control of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent had the locus standi to initiate the rent control proceedings as a co-owner and that the settlement between the parties was not countenanced due to lack of evidence.
Issues: Locus standi of the first respondent to initiate rent control proceedings, validity of the settlement between the parties, and fixation of fair rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent had the right to initiate the rent control proceedings as a co-owner and that the settlement lacked evidence. The court also upheld the Appellate Authority's decision on the fair rent.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, confirming the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. No costs were awarded.
The tenant who is the revision petitioner has challenged the common order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes in R.C.A.Nos.563 & 885 of 2004 against the order dated 09.03.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller of XVI Small Causes, Madras in R.C.O.P.No.1724 of 1998 which was the petition filed by the respondents herein for fixation of the fair rent in respect of the commercial portion measuring 6,000 Sq.ft consisting of the ground floor and first floor of the premises bearing Municipal Door Nos.135 & 136 at Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.1. The Rent Control Petition was originally filed by the first respondent herein on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court (Rent Controller, Chennai). It was the case of the first respondent that the revision petitioner was a tenant under them and that he was a co-owner of the premises bearing Nos.135 & 136, Mount Road, Chennai along with his siblings and mother. He contended that he had the approval of the other co-owners to file the petition and if there was an objection by the respondent, other co-owners were ready to give their written consents. The first respondent had submitted that the revision petitioner was paying only monthly rental of Rs.8,300/- exclusive of the electricity and water consumption charges in respect of the premises which was situated in a prime commercial locality. The first respondent had claimed a fair rent of Rs.2,94,180/- per month.
2.2. The revision petitioner herein resisted the above petition on the ground that the first respondent was not a co-owner in exclusive charge and control and management of the suit property. He would further contend that they had entered into an agreement only with the first respondent's brother R.J. Amarnath (second respondent herein) and that rent was payable only to the second respondent herein. They would further contend that second respondent had originally filed R.C.O.P.No.2924/83 for fixing fair rent and R.C.O.P.No.2271/83 for eviction on the grounds of acts of waste and R.C.O.P.No.2658/83 on the ground of willful default. It was his case that these petitions were withdrawn by the second respondent and a Lease Agreement was entered into on 10.10.1994 wherein it was agreed that the monthly rental which was Rs.3,250/- would be enhanced to a sum of Rs.4,000/- with effect from 01.09.1983. It is this rent that has been gradually enhanced to the sum of Rs.8,300/- per month which was payable as on the date of the filing of the Rent Control Petition. The respondent had further contended that the prime portion of the petition premises was constructed by them and they would further contend that the land value quoted was far in excess of the actual value and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In view of the objections raised by the revision petitioner, the second respondent herein was impleaded as the second petitioner in the Rent Control proceedings by order dated 11.11.2003 in M.P.No.1093 of 2003.
3. The respondents had examined the Engineer who had inspected the petition premises as P.W.1 and had marked his Report, Plan and Comparative Sale Deed as Exs.P.1 to 3 and Analysis Report as Ex.P.4. On the respondent's side one R. Radhakrishnamurthy was examined as R.W.1 and he had filed a sale deed of the year 1963 as Ex.R1 and a letter as Ex.R2. The Rent Controller on a total analysis of the evidence both oral and documentary, fixed the land value at a sum of Rs.1 Crore. The Rent Controller chose to not take into consideration Ex.P.3 as he felt that the yearly enhancement of 10% was far too excessive. Therefore, the Rent Controller arrived at a land value of Rs.1 Crore. The Rent Controller further came to a conclusion that only 1,454 Sq.ft had to be taken into consideration since there was a first floor. Ultimately, the Rent Controller arrived at a monthly fair rent of Rs.76,124/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, both the revision petitioner as well as the respondents had fi
