The main legal point established in the judgment is the fair rent fixation under the Tamilnadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1973, and the factors considered in determining the fair rent.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25(1) of Tamilnadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1973 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 19.01.2021 in R.C.A.No.472 of 2017 on the file of learned IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act, Chennai in confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 06.04.2017 in R.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2015 on the file of XV Judge, Small Causes Court.)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 19.01.2021 in R.C.A.No.472 of 2017 on the file of learned IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 06.04.2017 in R.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2015 on the file of learned XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord and the respondent/landlord has filed R.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2015 to fix the fair rent of Rs.20,961/- for the front side portion of the respondent-premises at Door No.61, Jermiah Road Vepery, Chennai – 7. A counter was filed by the petitioner / tenant to fix the present rent of Rs.3,500/-. The court below upon considering submissions as well as engineers'' report allowed the petition by fixing the fair rent for the petition premises at Rs.11,782/- from the date of petition, i.e., 09.10.2015. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred R.C.A.No.472 of 2017 to fix the fair rent of Rs.3,500/-. The appellate court upon considering the documents placed on record dismissed the petition and confirmed order passed by the court below. As against the same, the petitioner / tenant has filed the present Revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ought to have seen that even the respondent/ landlord''s engineer (P.W.1) had given the plinth area of petition premises as 328.38 sq.ft., and in the petition also the landlord pleaded the plinth area as only 317 Sq.ft., however, both the courts below erred in fixing the plinth area as 465 sq.ft., relying upon Ex.R.1, the release deed in favour of respondent / landlord.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submit that the petition premises is situated in a service road adjoining vepery bridge and therefore, the road width in front of the petition premises is less than 20 feet, hence the property in such narrow stretch will not command any significant market value. Further, the entire property in the name of the respondent is only 465 Sq.ft., and therefore, no development could be carried out in such a small property and such property will not fetch higher market value, therefore, fixing of Rs. 1.5 Crores per ground is excessive and without any supporting evidence, thereby pleaded to allow the present petition.

5. Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition premises is more than fifty years old and constructed with lime mortar and roofing is madras terrace and not RCC. When the portion was let out for rent to the respondent, there was only wooden door and the respondent, at his expenses, erected the rolling shutter and laid ceramic tiles. Further, there is no basic amenities and the service road in front of the petition premises is only 12 sq.ft., wide and the entire stretch is ''no parking zone'' and even for unloading business articles, the goods carrier could not be parked. Hence pleaded that based on the prevailing market value of the land and age and nature of construction of the building, the present rent of Rs.3,500/- itself is the fair rent for petition premises and hence prayed for dismissal.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.

7. On going through the documents placed on record, it is seen that the petition premises is situated at Vepery, jermiah Road, Chennai. Initially, the petitioner / tenant was put in tenancy for commercial occupation