Madras High Court
Mr.R.Roopkumar vs M/S.Rajiv Jewellers on 3 November, 2011
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 3.11.2011
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR
Civil Revision Petition (N.P.D.) Nos.1162, 4278 and 4279 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 in CRP (NPD) No.4278 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1 to 3 in CRP (NPD) No.4279 of 2011
CRP(NPD)No.1162 of 2011:-
Mr.R.Roopkumar, ... Petitioner/Appellant/
Petitioner/Landlord
vs.
M/s.Rajiv Jewellers,
represented by its Prop. R.Jayakumar,
Old No.8/84, New No.78/2,
Sir Thiyagaraya Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017. ... Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent/Tenant
CRP(NPD)No.4278 of 2011:-
M/s.Rajiv Jewellers,
represented by its Prop. R.Jayakumar,
Old No.8/84, New No.78/2,
Sir Thiyagaraya Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017. ... Petitioner/Respondent/
Respondent/Tenant
vs.
Mr.R.Roopkumar, ... Respondent/Appellant/
Petitioner/Landlord
CRP(NPD)No.4279 of 2011:-
M/s.Rajiv Jewellers,
represented by its Prop. R.Jayakumar,
Old No.8/84, New No.78/2,
Sir Thiyagaraya Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017. ... Petitioner/Appellant/
Respondent/Tenant
vs.
Mr.R.Roopkumar, ... Respondent/Respondent/
Petitioner/Landlord
The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.1162 of 2011 is preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and Decree dated 3.1.2011 passed in R.C.A.No.586 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai, modifying the order and decretal order dated 16.3.2004 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1106 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.4278 of 2011 is preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and Decree dated 3.1.2011 passed in R.C.A.No.586 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai, modifying the order and decretal order dated 16.3.2004 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1106 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.4279 of 2011 is preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and Decree dated 3.1.2011 passed in R.C.A.No.736 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai, modifying the order and decretal order dated 16.3.2004 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1106 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For petitioner in
CRP No.1162 of 2001
and Respondent in
CRP Nos.4278 and
4279 of 2011 : Mr.P.K.Sivasubramaniam
For respondent in
CRP No.1162 of 2011
and Petitioner in
CRP Nos.4278 and
4279 of 2011 : Mr.J.Nandagopal
-----
COMMON ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.1162 of 2011 is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 3.1.2011 passed in R.C.A.No.586 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, modifying the order and decretal order dated 16.3.2004 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1106 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
2. The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.4278 of 2011 is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 3.1.2011 passed in R.C.A.No.586 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, modifying the order and decretal order dated 16.3.2004 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1106 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
3. The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.4279 of 2011 is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 3.1.2011 passed in R.C.A.No.736 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai, modifying the order and decretal order dated 16.3.2004 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1106 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
4. The three Civil Revision Petitions arise under the same R.C.O.P.No.1106 of 2003 filed for fixation of fair rent. By consent, the three Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together for final disposal and disposed of by this common order.
5. The landlord filed CRP No.1162 of 2011 seeking enhancement of fair rent stating that the determination of fair rent by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Primarily, the Civil Revision Petition No.1162 of 2011 is filed stating that there is an error in not taking into consideration the basic amenities and scheduled amenities apart from the land value which is the main reason for the landlord for filing this revision petition seeking enhancement.
6. The tenant filed two Civil Revision Petitions, viz., C.R.P.Nos.4278 and 4279 of 2011 seeking reduction of the fair rent fixed.
7. The tenant in these three revision petitions entered into rental agreement in the year 2003, when the landlord approached the Rent Control Authority for fixation of fair rent. The rent that was paid by the tenant was Rs.2,400/- per month. The landlord claimed Rs.12,308/- as fair rent before the Rent Controller in RCOP No.1106 of 2003.
8. On contest, the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 16.2.2004 fixed the fair rent at Rs.9,404/- per month.
9. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord was examined as P.W.1 and Thiru Nanendra Dass, who is the Engineer was examined as P.W.2. The documents Exs.P-1 to P-9 were filed on behalf of the landlord. The tenant Mr.Jayakumar, was examined as R.W.1 and an engineer Mr.Anbarasan was examined as R.W.2. Exs.R-1 to R-15 were marked.
10. The learned Rent Controller, after taking into inconsideration the evidences of the engineer P.W.1 and the documents Exs.P-3 and P-4, has fixed the land value at Rs.84,38,400/-. After allowing the depreciation at the rate of 1% for 60 years, and fixing the building value at Rs.8,45,598/-, the fair rent was determined at Rs.9,404/- per month.
11. Aggrieved by the fixation of rent as above, the landlord preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.586 of 2004 and the tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.736 of 2004. Landlord's appeal RCA No.586 of 2004 was allowed on 3.1.2011 and the tenant's appeal RCA No.736 of 2004 was dismissed. While allowing the landlord's appeal RCA No.586 of 2004, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority enhanced the land value to Rs.1,00,00,000/- and after allowing depreciation and taking into account the land and building value, fixed the fair rent at Rs.10,969/- per month.
12. The landlord has now filed the Civil Revision Petition No.1162 of 2011 primarily contending that the land value has to be increased based on the basic amenities at 15% and scheduled amenities at 5% which have been omitted and he referred to ground Nos.5 and 7 in the Rent Control Appeal to substantiate the plea of basic amenities and scheduled amenities.
13. The tenant on the other hand has field two Civil Revision Petition Nos.4278 and 4279 of 2011 stating that the documents filed in support of the land value are relatable to the property situate at Siva Prakasam Street, T.Nagar; whereas the petition premises situate at Thiyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar. Therefore, relevant document has not been produced before the Court below by the landlord. The fixation of land value is on the higher side. As far as the basic amenities and scheduled amenities are concerned the tenant's contention is that both the court's below have consistently held that the above amenities have not been provided by the landlord and therefore, the same was not granted. He requested this Court not to give any credence to such arguments as on the question of fact both the courts have held against the landlord.
14. Insofar as the land value is concerned the landlord has produced document Exs.P-3 and P-4. One is of the year 2000 and the other is of the year 2002. Even as per the above documents, the ground value is shown at Rs.1,45,81,555/- and Rs.2,92,75,200/- per ground respectively. Needless to state that Sir Thiyagaraya Road is busy thoroughfare and an arterial road and the value will be far higher than the location of the property in the document Exs.P-3 and P-4. The fact that the demised premises is located in an highly commercial area is not in dispute. The fair rent application has been filed in the year 2003. Necessarily, the value should have been much higher than the value as per document. Therefore, the courts below should have taken the value either on the basis of Ex.P-3 or Ex.P-4 and not anything less. There was no justification to reduce the land value. If the land value is taken in terms of Ex.P-3 which is of the year 2000, the land value for the purpose of fixation of fair rent will be Rs.1,45,81,555/- per ground.
15. There is no dispute on the value of the building which is a Madras Terraced portion. There is no dispute on the depreciation at 1% per year for 60 years.
16. Insofar as the basic amenities and scheduled amenities are concerned, the plea of the landlord has been rightly rejected by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Rent Control Appellant Authority on the basis of the evidence let in by either parties. This Court is not inclined to reappreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion as there appears no serious infirmity in the finding with regard to lack of basic amenities and scheduled amenities. Both the courts below were justified in rejecting the landlord's claim in that regard.
17. The plea of the tenant that in the appeal filed by the tenant for redetermining the fair rent, the appellate court should not have fixed higher rent, cannot be countenanced as the courts have consistently held that in the matters relating to fixation of fair rent, the Rent Controller can fix higher fair rent than what was claimed. In other words, it has been held that the Rent Controller is free to fix the fair rent irrespective of the contention of the parties in M/s.Devotax Company by its partner A.P.Chinniah vs. T.R.Ramanath and another reported in 99 Law Weekly 269 at 271 = 1986(2) MLJ 297 at 300. It is also held that in the appeal filed for enhancement, the appellate authority can only dismiss the appeal or grant enhancement, but cannot reduce the amount unless the tenant has filed the appeal questioning the grant in K.Khasim Khaleali vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Accommodation Controller, Madras, 1982(1) MLJ 273 at 274 = 1982(2) RCJ 494 at 495. In Ramana, D.V. alias Venkataramana Bhat vs. P.S. Rathina Bai, reported in 2000(1) Law Weekly 826, the court held in an appeal filed by the tenant against the order fixing fair rent, the Appellate Authority has power to enhance the fair rent holding that the fair rent has to be fixed as per the specified procedure provided under the Act. Therefore, the plea taken by the tenant that enhancement is not permissible in the appeal filed by the tenant is rejected.
18. CRP (NPD)No.1162 of 2011:- In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition No.1162 of 2011 filed by the landlord is allowed to the extent as follows:-
(1) The land and building value is fixed at Rs.15,43,728.13 (2) Fair Rent at 12% to the petition building is fixed at Rs.15,437.28 (3) There will be no order as to costs.
(4) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19. CRP (NPD)Nos.4278 and 4279 of 2011: The Civil Revision Petitions filed by the tenant are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
ts To The Registrar, Small Causes Court, Chennai