Madras High Court
P.Srineevas vs Akila on 27 July, 2012
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:27.07.2012 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1978 and 2043 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010 P.Srineevas ... Petitioner in CRP NPD No.1978/10 and respondent in CRP NPD No.2043/2010 vs Akila ... Respondent in CRP NPD No.1978/10 and Petitioner in CRP NPD No.2043/2010 These two civil revision petitions are preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 as against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2010 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCA No.72 of 2007 in modifying the order and decree dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP No.1206 of 2005. For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh KUmar For Respondent : Mr.M.L.Ramesh COMMON ORDER
Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2010 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCA No.72 of 2007 in modifying the order and decree dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP No.1206 of 2005, these two civil revision petitions have been focussed by the landlord as well as the tenant.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions would run thus:
a) The landlord, viz., S.P.Sreenivas filed the RCOP No.1206 of 2005 before the Rent Controller seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the demised premises concerned.
b) The tenant resisted the RCOP.
c) During enquiry, the landlord examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the tenant, Rws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R9 were marked.
d) After hearing both sides, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.1,63,659/- per month.
e) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the tenant preferred RCA. After hearing both sides, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority modified the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in fixing the fair rent and he re-fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.1,08,689/- per month.
f) Challenging and impugning the said fixation of fair rent by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, these two revisions are preferred both by the tenant as well as by the landlord.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the landlord by placing reliance on the evidence adduced before the Rent Controller would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
- Even though the landlord placed reliance on Ex.P3 of the year 2005, which would highlight the point that the value per sq.ft will be much more than Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft., yet the learned Rent Controller fixed the value at a lesser rate, so to say, at Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft and the Appellate Authority even reduced that amount further and thereby deprived the landlord to get the fair rent fixed.
- In respect of all the other aspects, in fixing the fair rent, the landlord is having no objection .
According to the learned senior counsel for the landlord, the findings of the Rent Controller in fixing the fair rent in a sum of Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft, atleast should have been confirmed by the appellate authority, but he did not do so.
Accordingly, he would pray for restoring the order of the learned Rent Controller.
5. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments and pleas put forth by the learned senior counsel for the landlord, the learned counsel for the tenant would pilot his argument, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:
- Without any basis the learned Rent Controller fixed the value of the land at Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft and the appellate authority though had reduced to some extent the rent fixed, it should have further reduced the amount from Rs.1,548/- per sq.ft.
- The document relied on by the tenant Ex.R7 was unjustifiably disregarded by both the authorities, viz., the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate authority.
- According to the learned counsel for the tenant, the demised premises is situated in an area surrounded by slum and ingress and egress to the demised premises is difficult and cumbersome one because of the fact that the inmates of the demised premises should pass and re-pass through the slum area and as such, the value of the land should not have been assessed at Rs.1,548/- per sq.ft.
Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the orders of both the courts below.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether without having any solid evidence both the authorities arrived at the land value in fixing the fair rent?
7. The learned senior counsel for the landlord while concluding his argument, in all fairness, would submit that in the event of this court finding that some more evidence is required to fix the actual value of the land, due opportunity might be given to both sides by remitting the matter back to the appellate authority with a direction that both sides should be given opportunity to adduce evidence both oral and documentary concerning the value of the land and not in respect of other aspects already fixed by the appellate authority.
8. The learned counsel for the tenant also in all fairness would submit that such a course would be appropriate.
9. Trite the proposition of law is that guideline value as such cannot be taken as the criterion for fixing the land value. In such a case, it is for the parties to produce clinching evidence in this regard. The landlord produced Ex.P3, the certified copy of the sale deed dated 06.06.2005 referring to an undivided share relating to the property situated in the vicinity where the demised premises is situated and the learned Rent Controller in para No.11 of the order relating to the land value observed that there was no satisfactory legal evidence available before her relating to the actual land value relating to the demised premises. It is an admitted fact that the Engineer who was examined on the side of the landlord did not refer to Ex.P3 and he only relied upon the guideline value, which was not accepted by the Rent Controller.
10. The learned Rent Controller also did not place reliance on Ex.R7 relied on by the tenant on the main ground that it was referring to 1/8 th share, so to say, a smaller extent in an undivided property. Whereas the demised premises is measuring a total extent of 13,710 sq.ft, which accommodates the tenant's residential as well as ladies hostel.
11. My mind is reminiscent and redolent of the trite proposition of law that there should be exemplar documents or some clinching evidence so as to arrive at the land value. Muttatis mutandis, the procedures adopted for assessing the value of the land in land acquisition proceedings can be ushered in, in respect of the value of the land in fixing the fair rent also.
12. Accordingly, if viewed, the appellate authority while disagreeing with the Rent Controller once again apparently fell into error in assessing the land value; because he just on mere guesstimate arrived at the land value, which is far below the guideline value itself. He has relied on neither Ex.P3 nor Ex.R7 or the guideline value.
13. As such, I could see considerable force in the submission made by both sides that the evidence is lacking in fixing the land value and not in respect of other aspects.
14. Hence, in these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the findings of both the authorities relating to various aspects involved in fixing the fair rent should be confirmed expect in respect of the fixation of the value of the land for fixing the fair rent and as such, I would like to set aside that much portion of the findings of the appellate authority and ultimately the fixation of fair rent by the appellate authority and remit the matter back to it for giving due opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence both oral and documentary relating to the value of the land alone including the locational value. The appellate authority shall do well to see that the matter is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties shall appear before the appellate authority on 14.08.2012 and the Registry is directed to sent the records to the court concerned immediately.
15. With the above direction, both these civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
vj2 To
1. The VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai
2. The XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai