IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Pronounced on : 03-03-2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Civil Revision Petition No. 549 of 2021 and C.M.P. No. 4718 of 2021 ---

3F Industries Limited No.222, Fountain Plaza, I-Floor, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

Represented by its Vice President Mr. Jitendra Goenka S/o. Mr.Shiv Bhagwan (Company Name substituted vide Court order dated 10.04.2023 made in C.M.P.No.7042 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.551 of 2021) .. Petitioner Versus M. Goutham Chand Jain .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 (1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2019 in R.C.A. No. 478 of 2017 on the file of the VII Small Causes Court at Chennai confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 20.07.2016 in R.C.O.P. No. 1985 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court at Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr. T. Saikrishnan For Respondent : Mr. K.R. Rameshkumar

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2019 made in R.C.A. No. 478 of 2017 on the file of the VII Small Causes Court at Chennai confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 20.07.2016 passed in R.C.O.P. No. 1985 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court at Chennai.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the tenant and the Respondent is the Landlord.

3. As per the averments in RCOP No. 1985 of 2010 filed by the Respondent/Landlord, the petition premises being part of the house, ground and premises (ground floor) bearing Door No.1, Arulanandam Street, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai measuring 4330.5 square feet or thereabouts was owned by the the Respondent/Landlord. The Revision Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the above said property through a lease agreement dated 23.04.2004 by the landowner's predecessor in title (viz.,) Mrs. Zubaida Nachiya, represented by her power agent Mr. L.M. Basheer Ahmed. At the time when the Revision Petitioner was inducted as a tenant, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.30,000/- representing Rs.21,000/- towards rent and Rs.9,000/-

towards amenities for three years commencing from 01.05.2004. The Revision Petitioner tenant paid Rs.1,75,000/- as security deposit, representing Rs.1,22,500/- towards rent and Rs.52,500/- towards amenities. The tenancy was for commercial purpose and the premises possess all the locational advantages. The rent presently being paid by the Revision Petitioner is very low when compared to the locational advantages the premises possess. The land value in the locality is roughly around Rs.1,25,00,000/- per ground, but the rent is not befitting the land value and other amenities. Therefore, the Respondent has filed RCOP No. 1985 of 2010 on 16.11.2010 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for fixation of fair rent at Rs.1,31,790/- per month for the premises.

4. On notice, the Revision Petitioner-tenant filed a counter statement contending inter alia that the land value mentioned in the calculation sheet filed along with the Original Petition is exaggerated. Except electricity, there are no specific amenities provided to the building in question. The measurement of the land and building mentioned is also on the higher side and it does not reflect the actual area in occupation of the Revision Petitioner- tenant. The Revision Petitioner-tenant is using the premises as a godown. As the street is very narrow the vehicle which enters into the street could not turn around and it has to come in the reverse and thereby it is stated that there are many such disadvantages in utilising the property in question. The property does not possess any locational advantage. The railway station, bus stop and market are very far from the property. The rent of Rs.30,000/- itself is on the higher side. The land value mentioned by the Respondent-Landlord is an illusionary and it cannot be Rs.1,25,00,000/- as mentioned by t