The Executive Officer must adhere to statutory directions under Section 34-A(1) of the HR and CE Act for fair rent fixation and market value determination.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 34-A(5) of the HR and CE Act, against the order dated 12.02.2013 made in A.P.No.50 of 2012 by the 1st respondent, confirming the order dated 15.07.2011 of the 2nd respondent.)

1. The revision challenges an order passed by the Commissioner, HR and CE Department, in A.P.No.50 of 2012, dated 12.02.2013.

2. The 1st petitioner before this Court is the tenant. The tenant is in occupation of 2941 sq.ft. The original tenant was one Vaithiyalinga Nadar. From him, the property came to S.Pathikarasi, the 1st petitioner. The rent that was being paid for 2941 sq.ft. was Rs.5/- per month. It is an admitted case that the 1st petitioner had sublet the property to the third parties and they are in occupation of the same. As against those tenants, the fair rent that was fixed was Rs.6,240/- per month for 300 sq.ft. The Executive Officer had taken into consideration the fair rent fixed for the building and had fixed the value at Rs.28,992/- per month.

3. According to Mr.S.Thangavel, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Executive Officer ought not to have taken into consideration the value fixed in the rent control proceedings and he ought to have independently taken into consideration the value that is fixed by the Statutory Committee under Section 34-A(1) of the HR and CE Act. According to him, the Executive Officer should have referred only to that proceeding and fixed the value. He would bring to my notice that there is a procedural violation of G.O.Ms.No.353 and a circular issued by the Commissioner, HR and CE Department, dated 02.02.2009. According to him, the Statutory Committee should have issued a notice to him, received his reply and thereafter, fixed the value.

4. Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would point out that the fixation of fair rent was only based on the admitted fair rent fixed in R.C.O.P.No.453 of 2007 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai and therefore, there is no violation by the order of fixing fair rent by the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer has only fixed the fair rent at Rs.16.60 per sq.ft. He would further point out that the property is situated in the heart of the City of Chennai and the market value goes beyond the value fixed by the Executive Officer. He would also point out that from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Adimanaiveal House Owners Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to the Government, HR and CE Department, Chennai, (2009) 4 MLJ 1223, the value fixed by the Statutory Committee in terms of the circular issued by the Commissioner, HR and CE Department, dated 02.02.2009 is only recommendatory and not final. He would also draw my attention to “explanation” appended to Section 34-A(1) of the HR and CE Act, to press home the point that the Executive Officer can determine the market value on the basis of a similar type of property situated in the locality.

5. It is pertinent to note that the Executive Officer has fixed the fair rent only for 1736 sq.ft. The original extent which had been leased out to the 1st petitioner is 2941 sq.ft. The discrepancy in the area is, because the 1st petitioner before me had sublet the property to two persons and they had directly approached the temple for attornment of lease in their favour. The two tenants are Damodaran and Kesavan. When the temple had leased out the premises to the extent of 2941 sq.ft., the concession extended by the Executive Officer to the revision petitioners for 1736 sq.ft. is bewildering. He ought to have fixed the fair rent for the entire extent of 2941 sq.ft. This is so because a sub tenant of a building under a tenant will not become a direct tenant of the temple with respect to the land.

6. In fact, following the said principle, in so far as the revision filed under the Rent Cont