Madras High Court
Uco Bank vs Jeetha Kewalram (Deceased) on 19 May, 2010
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.05.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P. (NPD) No.2907 of 1996 Uco Bank, 835, Anna Salai, Madras 600 002, rep. By its Branch Manager. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Jeetha Kewalram (Deceased) 2.Deepa J.Daryanani 3.Sunanda J.Daryanani 4.Dimple J.Daryanani 5.Naresh J.Daryanani (Respondents t to 5 brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased sole respondent (Jeetha Kewalram) vide as per order of Court dated 05.12.2001 made in C.M.P.No.19791 to 19793 of 2001) 6.A.Parasmal Vaid 7.P.Indira Bai 8.P.Mohanchand (RR6 to 8 impleaded vide order of Court dated 04.06.2007 made in C.M.P.No.10530 of 2006) ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of Fixation of Fair Rent dated 22.08.1996 passed in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 on the file of the VII Court of Small Causes Court at Madras against the order of Fixation of Fair Rent dated 03.02.1994 made in R.C.O.P.No.1843 of 1992 on the file of XV Small Causes Court at Madras. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bhiman For Respondents : Mr.B.Christdas for RR2 to R5 Mr.Nithin Mardia for RR6 to R8 O R D E R
The Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Bank has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 22.08.1996 in R.C.A.No.544/1994 passed by the Learned VII, Court of Small Causes, Chennai against the order of Fixation Fair Rent dated 03.02.1994 in R.C.O.P.No.1843 of 1992 passed by the Learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Learned First Appellate Authority, viz., VII Court of Small Causes in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 on 22.08.1996 has passed an order of confirming the Fixation of monthly Fair Rent at Rs.35,962/- in respect of the petition mentioned property determined by the Learned Rent Controller from the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition and dismissed the Appeal without costs.
3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned Appellate Authority viz., the Learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A. No. 544 of 1994, the Revision Petitioner/Bank has preferred this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
4. The point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is:
"Whether the order of the Learned Appellate Authority viz., the Learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 on 22.08.1996 in confirming the monthly Fair Rent at Rs.35,962/- in respect of the scheduled mentioned property determined by the Learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes in R.C.O.P.No.1843 of 1992 on 03.02.1994 is correct in law?"
5. According to the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank, the order of the Learned Rent Controller as well as the Learned Appellate Authority in the main R.C.O.P.No.1843 of 1992 dated 03.02.1994 and in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 dated 22.08.1996 are contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probability of the case and in fact, the Learned Appellate Authority viz., VII Court of Small Causes, has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the Revision Petitioner/Bank has no objection in regard to the cost of construction, basic amenities and Schedule 1 amenities without considering the Report of the two Engineers viz., that of the Landlord which indicated much difference.
6. Added further, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank that the Learned Appellate Authority erred in accepting the documents filed by the Landlord to arrive at the value of the land without considering the evidence adduced by the tenant in regard to the value of the land. It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank that both the Authorities have erred in accepting the value of the land based on the document filed by the Landlord which pertains to a property more than one furlong from the petition mentioned property. That apart, the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank contends that the documents filed by the Landlord pertains to the year 1998, when the petition was filed in 1992 to arrive at the value by simply at 10% per year is only a surmise and not an actual one.
7. The Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner submits that acceptance of the sale deeds relating to their parties' properties without examining them as to the circumstances which the property was sold for the price is not a correct procedure adopted by the Authorities concerned and the evidence of R.W.1 Engineer (on behalf of the Tenant) has not been appreciated by the Authorities concerned and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
8. Proceeding further, the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank projects a plea that the sum provided for Schedule I Amenities has not been arrived at as per procedure enjoined under the T.N.Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 without giving a finding on the actual value of the amenities as mentioned under the Act.
9. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank that both the Authorities have erred in accepting the age of the building as 20 years by placing reliance on Ex.P11 since it is only the improvements made in the properties and not in the construction of the building itself and for which the category of the building the Authorities ought to have arrived at the amounts as per the Act but the Authority concerned has given his own calculation and fixed the Fair Rent.
10. In effect, in view of the above submissions, the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice.
11. In the original R.C.O.P. Petition No.1843 of 1992 filed by the Landlord (since deceased), it is among other things averred that he is having 1/4th undivided interest in the land bearing No.835 Annasalai (Mount Road), Chennai 2 and the said 1/4th interest is held in common by him along with Smt.Radhabai, Mohan Kevalram and Prakash Kevalram who have the remaining 3/4th undivided interest in relation to the land in question. Further, it is also mentioned that still recently even the superstructure owned by him in common and there was a partition of the superstructure alone in pursuance of a Partition Deed dated 24.12.1991 and the land continued to be held in common, etc.,
12. In the main R.C.O.P. Petition, the deceased Landlord had taken a plea that he is entitled to part of the first floor of the property having the plinth area of 39 sq. ft. And also a Merzzanine floor measuring 404 sq.ft. in the said property and for owning the superstructure, he was holding 1/4th undivided share on the land over which the entire superstructure stood.
13. The petition mentioned property was let out to the Revision Petitioner/Bank and as on date, the Revision Petitioner was paying a monthly Rent of Rs. 6,200/- only.
14. The petition mentioned building is situated at the heart of Mount Road and has advantages. The entire property is on the area of about two grounds and 641 sq. ft.. and in relation to the superstructure to which the deceased Landlord was entitled to and which was let out to the Bank the deceased Landlord was entitled to 1/4th undivided interest in the said land of two grounds and 641 sq. ft.
15. The petition mentioned building has a plinth area of 3958 sq.ft. and also Mezzanine floor measuring 470 sq.ft. In the Partition Deed dated 24.12.1991 (between the parties) the superstructure was allotted to the deceased Landlord and was valued at Rs.7,42,975/- as per the necessary guidelines of the Registration Department in relation to the valuation of the property for Registration purpose.
16. According to the Landlord (Deceased), the market value of the land over which the property stands would not be not less than Rs.50 lakhs per ground and therefore, in the original petition had prayed for Fixation of Fair Rent per month at Rs.48,969/-.
17. The calculation for arriving at a Fair Rent of Rs.48,969/- per month is mentioned hereunder:-
a) Plinth area : 3958 sq.ft.
b) Mezzanine floor :407 sq.ft.
c) Cost of Construction of 3958 sq.ft.
(3958X250) :Rs.9,89,500.00
d) Cost of Mezzanine floor 407 sq.ft.
@ Rs.150/- per sq.ft. : Rs. 71,100.00
-------------------
Rs.10,60,600.00
e) Add: for Basic amenities at 20% :Rs. 2,12,120.00
-------------------
f) Total cost of construction :Rs.12,72,720.00
g) Age of the building : 17 years
h) Depreciation @ 1% p.a. For 17
years 14.854222891% :Rs. 1,89,052.67
-------------------
i) Value of the Building :Rs.10,83,667.33
j) Total extent of the land :2 grounds & 641 sq.ft.
k) Value Rs.1,13,35,416.66
l) 1/4th value thereof :Rs.28,33,854.17
--------------------
m) Total cost of land and buildings :Rs.39,17,521.50
n) Add:25% for Schedule I amenities :Rs. 9,79,380.37
--------------------
o) Total value of the property :Rs.48,96,901.87
===========
p) Fair Rent per month @ 12% p.a. :Rs. 48,969.00
===========
18. The Revision Petitioner/Bank in its counter had stated that the deceased Landlord, RadhaBai, Mohan Kevalram and Prakash Kevalram all the four constitute the status of Landlords to maintain the original R.C.O.P. Petition and as such, the Landlord (Deceased) singly cannot maintain the petition. The Revision Petitioner/Bank had taken a plea that for fixing the Fair Rent for the buildings situated in places like Mount Road and other few similar places in Chennai, the value of the land cannot be blindly fixed as the basis of the prices for which any property has been sold in the area. Also, the mere fact that the Landlord's (Deceased) portion of the property was valued at Rs.7,42,975/-, the same could not influence the Learned Rent Controller to arrive at the Fair Rent.
19. It is the case of the Revision Petitioner/Bank as projected in the counter that the very reasonable Fair Rent for the petition mentioned property has been sold out as below:-
Cost of Construction Plinth Area: 3650 sq.ft. @ Rs.120/- sq.ft. -Rs.4,38,000/-
Mezzanine floor:407 sq.ft. @ Rs.60 sq.ft. -Rs. 24,420/-
---------------
Rs.4,62,420/-
Add for basic amenities 10% 46,242/-
---------------
Rs.5,08,662/-
Depreciation at 1% per year for 20 years
Depreciated value:Rs.5,08,662X0.826 Rs.4,20,155/-
Land Value
Apportioned area of land 1300 Sq.ft. @
Rs.10 lakhs/Ground Rs.5,41,666/-
---------------
Rs.9,61,821/-
ADD for Schedule I amenities:
Over-head tank, motor, pumpset and
mosaic ...3% Rs. 28,854/-
---------------
Rs.9,90,675/-
----------------
Fair Rent per month at 12% p.a. Rs.9,907/-
20. The case of the Revision Petitioner/Bank is that the petition mentioned property has not got more than three Amenities and therefore, for these amenities the claim of the Landlord/Deceased at 25% is an arbitrary one and also it is not accepting the plinth area and also the Age of the building mentioned in the petition.
21. It is the evidence of P.W.2(Engineer) that on 01.10.1993, he inspected the first floor of the petition mentioned property and submitted Ex.P2 Report and plan prepared by him is Ex.P3 and after conducting different test, he has come to the conclusion that the Age of the building is between 18 to 20 years and in the petition mentioned property, the Revision Petitioner/Bank is a Tenant and the petition mentioned property is situated in Chennai near Mount Road, Roundtana which has a high value and at a distance of 60 ft. from the building Anna statue is at a distance of 60 ft. and further that Tarapore Pwers, V.G.P. Square, etc., are at a distance of 150 sq.ft. from the petition mentioned building.
22. Also, it is the further evidence of P.w.2 (Engineer) that Rajaji Hall, Post Master's General Office, Telephonic Exchange, Casino Theatre, Devi Theatre, Anna Theatre are all situated near the petition mentioned property and that Anna Salai is a National Highway No.7 where buses are plying and near the petition mentioned building, there are bus stops around and that the building ground floor, first floor and a small portion in the second floor are there in the petition mentioned property and the building is RCC Type and that the mosaic floor is Type 1 item and the basic amenities are available in the petition mentioned building and the plinth area of the first floor is 3954 sq.ft. And during 1991-1992, the P.W.D. Rate per sq. ft. is Rs.137/- and Mezzanine floor is 403 sq.ft., etc.,
23. According to P.W.2, on the date of filing of the original Rent Control Petition, the value of petition place per ground, he had determined at Rs.50 lakhs.
24. P.W.2 (Engineer) in his cross-examination has stated that in Tarapoor Power, there is car parking and cycle stand and as per Ex.P6 Document Sale Deed dated 28.03.1984 694 sq.ft. is valued at Rs.8,16,000/-.
25. It is the categorical evidence of P.W.2/Engineer that he has not seen 1992, 1993 Sale Deeds and also he had not seen the Guideline value in respect of the petition mentioned property and further that, he had taken into account only the building expenses determined by P.W.D. Department.
26. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that he knows the suit O.S.No.2729 of 1976 and that he is the party in the said suit property and Ex.P11 is the copy of the Judgment in O.S.No.2729 of 1976 and as per document, construction was completed in the year 1976 and the Age of the building is 20 years.
27. R.W.1/Bank's Engineer in his evidence has stated that he had taken into consideration the sale deed of 42 Anna Salai Road and for the land, he had calculated the value at Rs.20 lakhs and that the Respondents' property extent is 1,357 sq.ft. but as per Partition Deed it is 1,360 sq.ft., and the monthly Rent 16377.88 and his Report and the Plan is Exs.R1 and R2 and Ex.R3 is the Sale Deed in and by which he had valued the cost of the land and Analyst Report is Ex.R4. Further, V.G.P. Shop, Anna Theatre are situated next to Ex.R3 property and further petition building is situated next to Ex.R3 property.
28. Before the Learned Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 on the side of the Landlord, M.P.no.538 of 1996 was filed to reopen the evidence for marking the certified copy of the order in O.S.No.2729 of 1976 and since the Revision Petitioner/Bank had no objection and made an endorsement to that effect, the said miscellaneous petition was allowed on 24.07.1996. Also, the Revision Petitioner/Bank filed M.P.No.-- Of 1996 in SR.No.1488 of 1996 to Reopen the Evidence on their side and permit them to let in Evidence and mark additional documents and since the Landlord had no objection for allowing the said petition, the Learned Appellate Authority had allowed the same on 18.04.1996.
29. According to the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank, the miscellaneous petitions filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code praying for reception of documents which was allowed by the Authority concerned must be discussed by the Learned Appellate Authority while passing the orders in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 but the Documents have not been properly discussed and this had caused prejudice to the Revision Petitioner/Bank.
30. On the side of the respondents, the Learned counsel cites the decision MESSRS.DOVO TAX COMPANY REP. BY ITS PARTNER A.R.CHINNAIAH V. T.R.RAMNATH AND ANOTHER, (1986) 2 MLJ 297 wherein it is held as follows:-
"Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 substituted by amendment Act 23 of 1973, as it now stands clearly lays down that the cost of construction of the building and the cost of the provisions of any one or more of the amenities specified in Schedule I shall be as on the date of the application for Fixation of Fair Rent. The cost of the construction of the building has to be assessed as on the date of the application with reference to the rates adopted for the purpose by the Public Works Department. It is not correct to say that the cost of construction must be the cost of the building as at the time of the construction of the building 75 years ago.
The cost of the amenities under section 4(4)(ii) of the Act has to be worked out on the cost of the building and the market value of the site."
He also cites the decision D.V.RAMANA @ VENKATARAMANA BHAT V. P.S.RATHINA BAI, 2000 (1) LW 826, wherein it is held as follows:
"It is clear that Fair Rent is fixed for the building whether it is applied by tenant or Landlord. Fixation of Fair Rent does not mean Fixation of low rent favourable or beneficial to the advantage of tenant, as that would result in Landlord getting only an unFair Rent. A Fair Rent is fixed as per the specified procedure provided under the Act. Fair Rent is essentially just rent having regard to all the circumstances and it is not rent favourable to the tenant as such. Whoever may be the applicant, the Fair Rent will have to be fixed according to the norms prescribed under the Act.
Appellate Authority has got all the powers of the rent controller and the entire case is open before him. While considering the appeal, it found that the Rent Controller has not followed the procedure under Section 4 of the Act. It reappreciated and recalculated the amount payable to the Landlord. Even though in the appeal filed by the tenant, he may be aggrieved in Fixation of Fair Rent at particular amount, when he files appeal, he pleads before the Appellate Authority only to fix Fair Rent. He has not pleaded before Appellate Authority to fix lower rent because he happened to be a tenant. It is only that power that is exercised by the Appellate Authority while holding that the Fair Rent fixed by the Rent Controller is low and if the norms are followed, the rent amount payable will be higher."
31. Yet another decision M/S. NAMATH WATCH COMPANY, BY ITS PROPRIETOR KALIMULLAH V. G.VIJAYAKUMAR AND ANOTHER, (2004) 3 M.L.J. 1 is relied on the side of the respondents to the effect that 'Fair Rent can be fixed at more than that claimed by the Landlord, if there are materials to support the same.'
32. Moreover, the Learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decision M/S.FOURESS ENGINEERING (INDIA) (P) LIMITED V V.KRISHNAN, (2004) 3 M.L.J. 107, wherein it is held that 'Fair Rent of a building is to be calculated on the total cost of the building and cost of the basic amenities.' He also draws the attention of this Court to the decision D.C.OSWAL V. V.K.SUBBIAH AND OTHERS, AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 184, wherein it is held that 'Universal escalation of rental judicial notice can be taken and the Rent of disputed premises has been raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by taking such judicial notice.'
33. It is to be borne in mind that the Fair Rent is fixed for the building and it is payable by whomsoever is the tenant whether he is a statutory Tenant or a contractual Tenant.
34. In fact what is fixed is not the Fair Rent payable by the Tenant or the Landlord who applies for the Fixation of Fair Rent but Fair Rent for the building. A Fixation of Fair Rent can be determined by means of following the procedure enjoined under the T.N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is well settled that Fair Rent is not a Rent favourable to the Tenant as the case may be.
35. In computing the market value of the site a) the portion of the site of which the building is constructed; b) a portion of upto 50% thereof of the vacant land if any, opening of such building and the balance 50% of the vacant land is to be recorded as an amenity. It cannot be gain said that in a proceeding for Fixation of Fair Rent, the Rent Controller/ the Learned Appellate Authority has to necessarily consider the market value of the site on the basis of available materials evidence on record. Further, while determining the Fair Rent, the market value of the site and the guideline value of the Registration Authorities can be taken into account as per the decision N.SULAIMAN V. R. RAVICHANDRAN, 1995 TLNJ 226.
36. Admittedly, P.W.D. Rates are only the Guidelines for Fixation of Fair Rent and it need not be the yardstick for determining the Fair Rent. After all, the market value is only the result of a bargain between the parties and the same will have to proved by evidence. It is the duty of the Learned Rent Controller/Appellate Authority to determine the Fair Rent. The market value of the property ought to be determined on the basis of sale transactions in the locality and not on the valuation Report or building plan. The market value of the land has to be determined on the basis of documents and evidence and the same cannot be determined based on concession.
37. It is essential on the part of the Learned Rent Controller/Appellate Authority to take into account not only the market value but also the construction of the building as opined by this Court. As a matter of fact, the total cost mentioned in Sub Sections 2 and 3 of Section 4 comprises of the market value of the site in which the building is constructed, the cost of construction of the building and the cost of provisions of one or more of the amenities specified in the schedules on the date of application for determination of Fair Rent. Indeed, Section 4 of the Act not only provides the procedure but also the principles and method on the basis of which the Fair Rent is to be determined by the appropriate Authority. Admittedly, valuation is not an exact science. A certain amount of conjecture is possible in fixing the Fair Rent, but the Appropriate Authority must be careful in not proceeding too further. While fixing a Fair Rent, the Authorities under the Act are not prevented from taking the benefit of such of the provisions of the Act as may be found applicable as far as possible, etc.,. As per Section 4 of the Act, it is not essential for the Learned Rent Controller to take into account the Rent prevailing in the area for a similar building in the same locality whether the petitioner premises is situated.
38. According to the Learned counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7, the Respondents 5 to 7 have caused a letter dated 31.10.2003 to the Revision Petitioner/Bank's Manager among other things mentioning that they fix the monthly Rent at Rs.35/- sq.ft. from the month of September 2003 payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month and also liable to pay a further interest free advance cum security of 10 months Rent on or before 5th of November 2003 and if the Bank fails to express its willingness to the aforesaid conditions in writing within 15 days from today then it is called upon and hand over possession on or before 30.11.2003 and pay rent at the rate of Rs.35/- per sq.ft. till the date of handing over the vacant possession. Again on 21.11.2003, the Respondents 5 to 7 have caused another letter by drawing the Bank's attention to their letter dated 31.10.2003 to vacate and hand over the vacant possession on or before 30.11.2003 in the event of Bank's inability to pay from 01.09.2003, etc.,
39. Added further, the Respondents 5 to 7 have issued a Lawyer's Notice to the Petitioner/Bank and its Regional Office dated 11.03.2004 among other things calling upon the Bank Authorities to pay the due sum of Rs.8,34,807/- (Total Rent from September 2003 to February 2004 Rs.9,16,500 Rs.81,843/-) within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, etc., and also requested the Bank to pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.1,52,775/-, etc.,
40. However, the Revision Petitioner/Bank through its Lawyer issued a Reply Notice dated 22.03.2004 to the Respondents 5 to 7 counsel stating that the Bank is not liable to pay the land at the rate of Rs.35/- per sq.ft. nor it is liable to pay Rs.8,34,807/-.
41. In the Letter dated 18.01.2008, the Revision Petitioner/Bank's Zonal Manager addressed to the Bank's Head Office, Calcutta, he has among other things mentioned that 'considering the facts, the offer by the new Landlord at Rs.25/- per sq.ft. from the date of his purchase of the property i.e., 03.09.2003 to December 2007 is reasonable which is comparatively lower than the prevailing rent rate for commercial property in that area and further, that the Landlord has requested the rent at Rs.50/- per sq.ft. from December 2007, etc., Further, in the letter dated 06.08.2008, the Assistant General Manager of the Bank addressed to the Bank's Head Office has stated the following:
"1) The value of land where branch premises is located which was valued at Rs.6156/- per sq.ft. as per Government guidelines during 2006 has now increased very much to Rs.8,000/- due to fact that Government Secretariat is being constructed just across the Road. In view of this development the rental value of this locality has gone up very much which is prevailing around Rs.100/- per sq.ft.
2) This means as of today the prevailing market rent for 4365 sq.ft. the area occupied by our branch will be Rs.4,36,500/-.
3) The Fair Rent agreed by the Rent Controller on 31.12.1994 at Rs.35962/- w.e.f 22.07.1992 i.e. Rs.8.23/- per sq. ft.
a) The legal opinion is that there will not be any reduction of Fair Rent in the order of the High Court in future, In that case, we have to pay the arrears of rent as indicated below.
1)For the period from 22/07/1992 to 31/08/2003 to the old landlord 133 Months x 10 days i.e 133.33 months Rs.47,94,813/- 2)For the period from 01/09/2003 to 31/08/2008 Rs.21,54,720/- to the new landlord 60 months Rs.69,52,583/- 3)Less rent paid on per Interim court order Rs13,640/- x 193.33 months. Rs.26,37,021/- 4)Arrears due to paid Rs.43,15,512/-
b)In case the High Court fixes an increased fair rent by taking into consideration rental value at Rs.30/-per sq.ft (if not 100/- sq.ft) as indicated in Law Dept (HO) letter HO/LAW/1809/2007-08 dated 18.02.2008 addressed to GAD; HO, the order of rent will be as follows.
1)For the period from 22/07/1992 to 31/08/2003 To the old landlord 133 Months x 10days i.e 133.33 months Rs.1,74,59,564/- 2)For the period from 01/09/2003 to 31/08/2008 Rs.78,57,000/- to the new landlord 60 months Rs.2,53,16,564/- 3)Less rent paid on per Interim court order Rs13,640/- x 193.33 months. Rs.26,37,021/- 4)Arrears due to paid Rs.2,26,79,543/-
4)The landlord has requested for Rs.25/- per sq.ft from Sept 03 till Dec 07 and Rs.50 per sq.ft from Jan08 till date. Arrear payment, if paid at Rs.25/- per sq.ft from 01/09/2003 to 31.08.2008 will be as follows.
1)For the period from 22/07/1992 to 31/08/2003 To the old landlord 133 Months x 10days i.e 133.33 months Rs.47,94,813/- 2)For the period from 01/09/2003 to 31/08/2008 Rs.65,47,500/- to the new landlord 60 months Rs.1,13,42,313/- 3)Less rent paid on per Interim court order Rs13,640/- x 193.33 months. Rs.26,37,021/- 4)Arrears due to paid Rs.87,05,292/-
From the above, you may observe that it will be fair on our part to decide that the matter of payment of arrears of Rs.87,05,292/- as requested by the landlord as indicated in point No.4, above. If not, we may pay an arrear amount of Rs.43,15,512/- as indicated in point No.3(a) above on the basis of fair rent of Rs.35,962/- ordered by Rent Controller."
In short, in the said letter, it is mentioned that the approval of the Head Office is sought to pay the arrears of Rs.43,14,512/- and to settle the matter.
42. Even in the Letter dated 01.09.2008, the Respondents 5 to 7 addressed to the Revision Petitioner's/Bank Zonal Office, Chennai has stated that they took possession of the vacant premises and received the keys subject to the following:
"(1) As per our discussion at Kolkata in the last week of December 2007 along with Mr.C.Thiyagarajan, Public Prosecutor/Government Pleader, Government of Tamil Nadu with the C.M.D., it has been aggrieved by him to settle the rental arrears at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.ft. from 01.09.2003 to 31.12.2007 and at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.ft. from 01.01.2008 till date of vacation. This amount has to be settled by 15.09.2008 itself.
(2) The Bank has to settle the Bill in respect of repairing the damages done to the building, the estimate for the same by way of Engineers Report is enclosed herewith."
43. As per the Memo of Calculation dated 08.12.2008, the Respondents 5 to 7 has stated as follows:
Rent for the period from 20.07.1992 till 31.08.2008 (193 months 10 days) @ Rs.35,962/- P.M X 193 Months & 10 days .......Rs.69,52,653/-
Less: Rents Paid @ 13,640.50 X 193 Months & 10 Days ........Rs.26,37,163.00 Arrears of rent due & Payable upto 31.08.2008 ........Rs.43,15,490.00 Add: Damages caused to the Property ........Rs. 2,93,630.00 Total amounts Due and payable by the Petitioner ........Rs.46,09,120.00
44. In the instant case, the learned Rent Controller viz., the learned XV Judge of Small Causes Court in R.C.O.P.No.1843 of 1992 on 03.02.1994 has fixed the monthly Fair Rent in respect of the petition mentioned building at Rs.35,962/- from the date of filing of the petition.
45. The break up details for arriving at a monthly Fair Rent of Rs.35,962/- is as follows:-
a) Type of Petition Mentioned Building -Clause I Type Age - 20 years
b) Cost of Construction: Rs.
i)RCC for 3594 Sq.ft.- Per sq.ft. Rs.140/- -585192/-
ii)Merzannine 403 sq.ft.-per sq.ft. Rs.100/- - 40300/-
iii)Staircase 134 sq.ft.-per sq.ft. Rs.130/- - 17420/-
--------------
642912/-
Basic Amenities 15% 96437/-
--------------
739349/-
--------------
Depreciation at 1% for 20 years
Rs.739349X820 (without Depreciation) - 606266/-
Value of the Land
1353 sq.ft. X Rs.50,00,000/-
-------------------------------- -2818750/-
2400 --------------
3425016/-
For Schedule I Amenities 5% - 171251/-
---------------
Total 3596267/-
--------------
Since the petition mentioned building is a non residential portion then the calculation is to be made at 12% of the total value. Then it works out to Rs.35,962/-.
46. The First Appellate Authority by placing reliance on Ex.P11 has come to the conclusion that the Age of the building is 20 years. It has also relied upon Ex.P8 Sale Deed dated 03.06.1988 in regard to the value of the petition mentioned property at Rs.50 lakhs and inasmuch as the Original Petition has been filed in the year 1992 and also taking note of the fact that the petition mentioned building is situated in vital part of Anna Salai, it has confirmed the monthly Fair Rent to Rs.35,962/- arrived at by the learned Rent Controller as a correct one.
47. As far as the present case is concerned, on going through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Fixation of monthly Fair Rent at Rs.35,962/- determined by the Learned Rent Controller in main R.C.O.P.No.1843 of 1992 on 03.02.1994 and later confirmed by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 22.08.1996 in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality and resultantly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by both the Authorities and hence the present Civil Revision Petition fails.
48. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
vri To
1. The VII Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Madras.
2.The XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras