Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Dr. H.S. Kumara – Appellant
Versus
D. Govindan (died) & Others – Respondents
CRP. NPD. No. 805 of 2018 & CMP No. 4454 of 2018
Decided On : 09-12-2020
For the Petitioner:M. Rajaraman for M/s. C.K.M. Appaji, Advocates
For the Respondents:P. Sunil, M/s. K.P. Santhosh, Advocates
The Court clarified the calculation and justification for adding a percentage for the provision of amenities specified in Schedule I under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Fair Rent - Section 4
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought fixation of fair rent for a non-residential building. The tenant disputed the amenities and land value claimed by the landlord. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The tenant appealed through Revision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the addition of 15% for basic amenities without reasoning was unjustified. It also determined the fair rent based on the area and land value, reducing it to Rs.17,421 per month.
Issues: Dispute over fair rent, amenities, and land value.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a certain percentage must be added for the provision of amenities specified in Schedule I, apart from the cost of actual provision of those amenities. It also considered the locational advantages while assessing the percentage to be added towards the value of the amenities.
Final Decision: The fair rent was reduced and fixed at Rs.17,421 per month.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decretal order passed in RCA No.369 of 2015 on the file of the IX Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 20.11.2017 confirming the order and decretal order passed by the learned Judge, XV Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP No.270 of 2013 dated 04.07.2015.)
This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing.
This Revision arises out of the proceedings under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. The respondent herein, the landlord, sought fixation of fair rent for the petition premises, which is a portion of a non-residential building, measuring about 605 sq. feet located in the ground floor of the premises bearing New No.42 Perumal Koil Garden Street, Chennai 600 079 and having postal address as No.17, Thirupalli street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 79. The agreed rent was Rs.1,900/- per month. The landlord claimed a monthly fair rent of Rs.38,250/-. The landlord had cited various amenities that were available in the building as well as the locational and other advantages enjoyed by the building as factors that should be taken into account while fixing the fair rent.
2. The tenant responded to the claim contending that the premises is situate in a crowded market area and it does not enjoy the so called amenities and the advantages as claimed by the landlord. The value of the land as suggested by the landlord, was also disputed and it was claimed that one ground of land in the area could be valued only at a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-. The tenant also relied upon an exemplar Sale Deed to justify his claim.
3. At trial, the landlord on his part examined a chartered Engineer. His Report and Plan were marked as Exhibits P1 and P2, while two exemplar Sale Deeds were filed as Ex.P3(a) and P3(b). An analysis report explaining the valuation of the land was filed as Ex.P4. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and examined another Chartered Engineer as R.W.2. Exhibits R1 to R6 were marked.
4. The learned Rent Controller upon an examination of the evidence on record concluded that the area of the building occupied by the tenant is 605 sq. feet and it enjoys at least two basic amenities viz., over head tank and electric motor pump for water supply. The building was also found to be a Clause I building and the age of the building was determined as 58 years. As regards the value of the land, the learned Rent Control found that the exemplar Sale Deed dated 14.12.2012 marked as Ex.P3(a), relied upon by the landlord’s Engineer is close to the date of filing of the petition and the property dealt with under the said Sale Deed being situate in the very same street would offer the appropriate guideline to fix the market value.
5. On the said conclusion, the learned Rent Controller fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,75,00,000/- per ground and apportioned the same for the petition premises for an extent of 248 sq.feet. In order to determine the value of the building, the learned Rent Controller adopted the PWD rates and after providing for depreciation at 1% per annum, the depreciated value of the building was worked out at Rs.2,10,419/-. The land value was worked out as Rs.20,18,752/-. The monthly fair rent, worked out at 12%, was arrived at Rs.20,187/-. Aggrieved the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA No.369 of 2015. The landlord also preferred an Appeal in RCA No.473 of 2015.
6. The learned Appellate Authority upon a reconsideration of the evidence on record concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved the tenant has come up with this Revision.
7. I have heard Mr.M.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for M/s.C.K.M.Appaji for the petitioner/tenant and Mr.P.Sunil, learned counsel appearing for Mr.K.P.Santhosh, for the respondent/landlord.
8. Mr.M.Raja
