COMMON ORDER

(Heard through video conferencing)

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the common Order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/ VIIIth Judge, Court of Small Causes Chennai dated 15.04.2014 passed in R.C.A.Nos.440 & 522 of 2007.

2. The facts of these Civil Revision Petitions have originated from the Rent Control Petition filed in R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2005 by the Civil Revision Petitioner/landlord before the learned Rent Controller/XIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, for fixing the fair rent for the demised premises. The learned Rent Controller has allowed the Rent Control Petition and fixed the fair rent at Rs.2,02,741/-p.m. The respondent/tenant contested the Rent Control Petition by alleging that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between himself and the petitioner and the demised premises was let out to him only as a vacant site and the superstructure has been put up by himself; since the superstructure was built by him, the rent control proceedings are not applicable to the demised property.

3. The learned Rent Controller did not accept the said argument and proceeded to record that the demised property was let out to the respondent as a building and fixed the fair rent. The landlord has filed the Rent Control Appeal in RCA.No.440 of 2007 for modifying the quantum of the fair rent. The tenant has filed the Rent Control Appeal in RCA.No.522 of 2007 by challenging the very maintainability of the Rent Control Appeal. A common Order was passed after hearing both the Rent Control Appeals under which the Rent Control Appeal filed by the tenant was allowed and the Rent Control Appeal filed by the landlord was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the landlord has filed these two present Civil Revision Petitions.

4. Since the parties are the same and the matter in issue also revolves around the issue of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and the applicability of the Rent Control Act to the demised premises, a common Order is passed after hearing both side learned counsels.

5. The matter lies in a very narrow campus. It has to be seen whether the respondent is a tenant for the building or whether the vacant site alone was let out to him with a permission to raise superstructure at his expenses and run the business by paying the ground rent alone. If it is found that the respondent has taken only the ground for rent then the Rent Control Act is not be applicable and the very Petition filed by the Petitioner before the Rent Controller itself is not maintainable.

6. The respondent himself has alleged that in the demised property, there was a hall named Hy-Fashion Hall and one G.Prasad was using it for his textile sale. The respondent submitted that he has paid a huge amount to G.Prasad in order to vacate him from the premises and only thereafter, he took its possession. There is no dispute as to the existence of the Hy- Fashion Hall in the demised premises at the time when the respondent came into occupation. It is also not in dispute that the demised premises along with its appurtenants is situated in No.63, Usman Road. The one side of the whole lot of property was facing a street abutting the road and thus, the Hy-Fashion Hall was facing the street. After the respondent came into possession, he converted the features of the hall by making some alterations and doing certain interior work so as to suit his hotel business. And for which, he has also obtained a license from the Chennai Corporation. License dated 24.11.1999 issued by the Health Department of Chennai Corporation to the respondent for running hotel in the demised premises has been produced as Ex.R8. So the fact that the respondent is running a hotel in the demised premises, is also not in dispute. The only contention made by the respondent is that he has taken the site only on ground rent basis and he himself has put up the superstructure according to his convenience and with the permission of the petitioner. Hence, he cannot