Madras High Court
The South India Corporation Agencies ... vs Chandrakanth C. Bandani And 3 Others on 9 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)CTC674, (1998)IMLJ685
ORDER
1. The tenant who aggrieved against the orders of the authorities below, fixing the fair rent at Rs. 3,018 per month has filed the above revision.
2. The landlords/petitioners filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.360 of 1985 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended, claiming rent at Rs. 2,307 per month. The same was resisted by the petitioner/tenant stating that the building in question would fetch only a rent of Rs. 633 per month. The learned Rent Controller in her order dated 26.4.1989 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 3,018 per month. To fix the said rent, the Rent Controller found that the age of the building is 76 on the date of filing R.C.O.P., and adopted cost of construction as per the P.W.D. rate, and fixed the basic amenities at 5%. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant filed appeal in R.C.A.NO. 411 of 1989 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras/Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and confirmed the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant has filed the above Revision.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant has submitted that even according to the respondents/landlords, the age of the building is 100 years old and the authorities below have fixed the same only at 76, relying on the earlier proceedings taken by the landlords, to evict the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The learned counsel has also submitted that since the building in question is in a dilapidated condition, it has no value and the P.W.D. rate could not be adopted to fix the cost of construction. He has farther submitted that the electrification was done by the tenant itself and so the authorities below are not correct in fixing the basic amenities at 5%.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the landlords has submitted that as held by the Apex Court and this Court, it is for the Rent Controller to fix the age of the building, etc., for the purpose of fixing the fair rent and the tenant cannot rely on the statement made by the landlords. Relying on Ex.P 9 sate deed dated 29.8.1984, the learned counsel has submitted that in the said document, the age has been mentioned as 75, and P.W.1 the power agent of the respondents has spoken about the recitals in the said document, in his evidence. Since the building was 75 years old in 1984, the authorities below fixed the same at 76 in 1985, when the petition was filed. With respect to the condition of the building, the learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is contrary to the scope of Section 4 of the Act. According to him, Section 4 does not speak about the condition of the building. While answering to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner regarding the basic amenities, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that though R.W.1 was examined, he has not substantiated the case of the tenant that the tenant has made the electrification at its cost.
5. No doubt the landlords have stated in their pleadings that the age of the building is 100 years. In the counter filed by the tenant, it is stated that the age of the building is 130 years. The Rent Controller relying on the report of R.W.6, marked as Exs.P-3, P-4 and P-8, fixed the age at 76. The Rent Controller has also taken into consideration of Ex.P-9 in support of his conclusion. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant has submitted that the authorities below are not correct in relying on the document, in the absence of any evidence from the person concerned to the document. In support of his submission, he has relied on the decision in Ramanathan, K. (died) And Another v. B.K. Nalini Jayanthi, . In the said decision, the Division Bench, while dealing with the power of the Rent Controller in fixing the market value of the site held that mere production of sale deed is insufficient, unless evidence is placed before the court to prove that the lands covered by the sale deed are similar in nature and character to the lands on which the building is situated. It will be foreign to hold that the said decision will apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the Rent Controller relied on the evidence of R.W.6 and his reports. Even with respect to Ex.P-9 sale deed, P.W.1, the power agent of the landlords was examined and he speaks about the concerned recitals in the document. So, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Rent Controller ought not to have relied on Ex.P-9 cannot be sustained. The authorities below have relied on the evidence of R.W.6 and fixed the age of the building at 76. On the basis of the documents and oral evidence, the authorities below have concurrently found that the age of the building is 76 years old. The only submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant is that the landlords themselves have stated about the age of the building as 100 years and so the authorities below are not correct in fixing the age of the building at 76. It is well settled that fair rent has to be fixed for a building after considering the pleadings and evidence available on record, irrespective of the concession made by the parties. Further fixation of fair rent has to be in accordance with the principles and not as estimated by the landlords. Hence the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
6. The further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the landlords have filed petition to evict the tenant on the ground that the building in question is in, dilapidated condition and it require demolition and reconstruction, and so the building has no value, and thereby the question of fixing the value for the building in question would not arise. But, there is no material available before this Court to accept the case of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition. In the present case, the authorities below fixed the cost of construction on the basis of the rate prescribed by the P.W.D. Section 4 of the Act does not restrict the fixation of fair rent, on the basis of the condition of the building. Only in appropriate cases, taking into consideration of the nature of the construction of the building, the authorities can allow, the amount not exceeding 30% for the construction; otherwise, as contemplated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, the cost of construction of the building shall be determined with due regard to the rates adopted by the P.W.D. for the constructed area concerned. In the absence of any restriction in the Statute regarding the fixation of fair rent on the basis of condition of the building, the authorities below are correct in arriving at the cost of construction, adopting the rates of P.W.D. as contemplated under the Statute.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that in the counter, according to the respondents, they have made all electrifications and rewiring at their cost in the premises in question, and so the landlords are not entitled to claim the same as amenities provided for the premises. But the authorities below have rightly rejected the same, on the basis that the tenant has not established the same, though he examined R.W.I, who is concerned with the, electric department of the Company. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, the authorities below cannot be said to have committed error in fixing the basic amenities at 5%. Though under the Act basic amenities can be given up to 15%, on the basis of the amenities available for the premises in question. Hence the submission of the learned counsel to that effect cannot be sustained.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords has submitted that the authorities below have wrongly fixed the land value, i.e., only at Rs. 1,50,000, contrary to their claim at Rs. 4,00,000 and though the petitioner/tenant has admitted (hat the value of the land is Rs. 3,20,000. As already stated, the authorities have to fix the fair rent on the basis of the materials and evidence available on record and not on the basis of concessions made by the parties. The authorities below have fixed the market value correctly on the basis of the documents and evidence available before them. The learned counsel is not in a position to point out any other evidence to substantiate their claim.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even the concurrent findings can be interfered with while exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. In support of his submission, he has relied on the decisions in Variety Emporium M/s. v. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina, 1985 (98) L.W. 25 and in Dovo Tax Company, M/s. v. T.R. Ramanath, 1986 (99) L.W. 269. The decision in Dovo Tax Company, M/s. v. T.R. Ramanath, 1986 (99) L.W. 269 is not relevant to the proposition raised by the learned counsel regarding the scope of Section 25 of the Act. Even in the decision Variety Emporium M/s. v. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina, 1985 (98) L.W. 25, the Apex Court has held that the High Court is right that, sitting in revision, it could not have reappreciated the evidence in the case as if it were a court of appeal. The learned counsel, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, reversing the order passed in the revision, holding that the High Court has not taken into consideration of the subsequent event which had arisen before the High Court for the first time, has submitted that the High Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below exercising powers under Section 25 of the Act. I find it difficult to accept the same.
10. Unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the authorities below, the revisional court shall not interfere with the same. I get support from the decision in SMT. Rajbir Kaur and another v. M/s. S. Chokosiri & Co., wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:-
"When the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional Court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted of and supported the one reached by the courts below. Therefore in the instant case the concurrent as to exclusive possession of sub-tenant was not amenable to reversal in revision by the High Court".
Similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in Dev Kumar (Died) Through L. Rs. v. Swaran Lata (SMT) and others,
11. In view of the above, even this Court is able to take a different view, on the basic of the evidence available on record, it could not be done exercising revisional jurisdiction as held by the Apex Court. Moreover, the authorities below have considered all the available evidence both oral and documentary, and arrived at a factual finding, after giving elaborate reasonings. Further, no other argument was advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. So, I am not inclined to interfere with the factual findings of the authorities below and I do not find any merits in the revision. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 15480 of 1993 is closed.