Madras High Court
V. Krishnamoorthy vs M.R.Lalitha on 3 September, 2007
Author: A.Selvam
Bench: A.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03/09/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Civil Revision Petition No.19 of 2004, Civil Revision Petition No.20 of 2004 V. Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner in both the petitions Vs 1. M.R.Lalitha 2. M.R.Rajan 3. M.R.Somnath 4. M.R.Prakash 5. S.M.Vijayanthi 6. T.N.Maheswari ... Respondents in both the petitions Civil Revision Petitions against the judgment and decretal orders dated 6/2/2004 made in Rent Control Appeal No.45 and 59 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Madurai, modifying the judgment and decree dated 23/1/2001 made in R.C.O.P.No.430 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Madurai. !For petitioner ... Mr.D.Balasubramaniam ^For respondents ... Mr.T.R.Jeyapalan :COMMON ORDER
Challenge in these Civil Revision Petitions is to the common order dated 6/2/2004 passed in Rent Control Appeal Nos.45 of 2001 and 59 of 2001 by the Appellate Authority (Rent Control)/Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, wherein the order dated 23/1/2001 passed in Rent Control Original Petition No.430 of 1994 by the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai is modified.
2. The respondents herein as petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, praying to fix the fair rent of the demised premises to the tune of Rs.22,000/- wherein the present civil revision petitioner has been shown as the respondent/tenant.
3. It has been contended on the side of the respondents/petitioners that the demised premises belongs to the first petitioner and during the pendency of the petition, he passed away and subsequently, the remaining petitioners have been added as the legal heirs of the deceased/first petitioner and the demised premises has been let out to the revision petitioner/respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The rent of every month should be payable on or before 5th day of succeeding English calendar month. The demised premises is situate in the heart of the town and the same is crowded with Merchants, who are doing various kinds of metal business. The demised premises would fetch more than Rs.22,000/- per month by way of rent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed.
4. Per contra, it has been contended on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent that the revision petitioner/respondent has been enjoying the demised premises as a tenant for monthly rent of Rs.500/-. It is false to say that the demised premises is situate in the heart of the town and so many business establishments are functioning near the demised premises. The value of the demised premises arrived at by the petitioners is not correct. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal.
5. On the basis of the divergent contentions raised by either party, the Rent Controller has fixed fair rent to the tune of Rs.1,813/-. Against the order passed by the Rent Controller, the respondents/petitioners have preferred Rent Control Appeal No.45 of 2001 and the revision petitioner/respondent has preferred Rent Control Appeal No.59 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub-Court, Madurai. The Appellate Authority after considering all the evidence available on record has fixed the fair rent to the tune of Rs.4,620/-. Against the common order passed by the Appellate Authority/Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.
6. Before considering the rival submissions made by either counsel, it would be more useful to look into the averments made in the petition as well as the orders passed by the Courts below. It is stated in the petition that the demised premises is the absolute property of the deceased/first petitioner and the same has been let out to the revision petitioner/respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. Further, it is stated in the petition that the demised premises would fetch Rs.22,000/- p.m., by way of rent. The Rent Controller has fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,813/- and the Appellate Authority/Rent Control has fixed the fair rent at Rs.4,620/-.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent has repeatedly contended that on the side of the respondents/petitioners, no document has been filed, so as to fix the value of the site. But on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent, Exs.R.2 and R.3 have been filed. Exs.R.2 and R.3 are the registration copy of the sale deeds dated 11/11/1983 and 8/3/1994 and the Appellate Authority (Rent Control) has fixed the value of the site on the basis of Ex.R.3. But the revision petitioner/respondent has failed to examine the vendor as well as the purchaser of Ex.R.3 and therefore, for assessing the correct value of the site, either the vendor or the purchaser of Ex.R.3 has to be examined and therefore, the present Civil Revision Petitions have to be remanded to the Court of Rent Controller and under the said circumstances, the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority (Rent Control), cannot be construed as correct fair rent.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners have also equally contended that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent, no document has been filed on the side of the respondents/petitioners, so as to fix the value of the site. On the side of the revision petitioner/respondent, Exs.R.2 and R.3 have been filed and the Appellate Authority (Rent Control) has fixed the value of the site as per Ex.R.3 and neither the vendor nor the purchaser found in Ex.R.3 need be examined and the Appellate Authority (Rent Control) has taken much pain to fix the value of the site of the demised premises as per the market value fixed in Ex.R.3 and therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions need not be remitted for the purpose of examining either the vendor or the purchaser found in Ex.R.3 and altogether, the present Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, the Appellate Authority (Rent Control) has fixed the value of the site of the demised premises as per the market value fixed in Ex.R.3. Ex.R.3 has come into existence in the year 1994 and the present petition has also been filed in the year 1994. Therefore, the method for fixing the site value of the demised premises adopted by the Appellate Authority (Rent Control) is quite correct. It is not the case of either side that the value of the demised premises has been fixed as per guideline value maintained by the Registration Department. The only gravaman of the revision petitioner/respondent is that the revision petitioner/respondent has failed to examine either the vendor or the purchaser of Ex.R.3. Therefore, a primordial duty is caste upon the Court to find out as to whether the examination of either the vendor or the purchaser of Ex.R.3 is necessary.
10. In order to encrust the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent, the following decisions have been relied upon.
11. The first and foremost decision is reported in 1996 - 2 LAW WEEKLY - 658 (K.RAMANATHAN (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. B.K.NALINI JAYANTHI), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that "Mere production and marking of a document by consent is not sufficient to prove its contents. Proving of the facts or contents stated in the document by evidence of persons who can vonchsafe the birth, necessary."
12. The second decision is reported in 1997 - 3 LAW WEEKLY - 193 (SRINIVASA GOUNDER Vs. K. VENKATESAN), wherein this Court has held that "Market value of property cannot be decided simply on the basis of valuation report or building plan."
13. The third decision is reported in 2006 (2) CTC - 433 (FULL BENCH) (SAKTHI & CO., THROUGH ITS PARTNER, VEERANAN Vs. SHREE DESIGACHARY), wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that "Market value for particular survey number is result of bargain between parties."
14. The fourth decision is reported in 2007 (3) CTC - 262 (GREAVES LTD., NO.13, NEW NO.26, 2ND LINE BEACH ROAD, GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI 1 Vs. V.S. RAGHAVAN AND ANOTHER), wherein this Court has held that "Fixation of fair rent has to be made considering pleadings and evidence available on record irrespective of pleas taken by parties."
15. From the conjoint reading of the decisions, the Court can discern that for fixing fair rent of the building in question, guideline values should not be adopted and the same should be fixed only on the basis of market value. Further, it is also made clear to the Court that without getting oral evidence, the Court cannot look into the contents of a particular document.
16. In order to remonstrate the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent as well as the decisions relied upon by him, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the following decisions.
17. The first and foremost decision is reported in 2001 (2) CTC - 424 (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER Vs. V.NARASAIAH), wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held that "The High Court cannot therefore, be faulted for relying on the transactions recorded in Ex.A.2 and A.4 though no one was examined for proving such transactions."
18. The decision referred to earlier has been followed in the decision reported in (2001) 3 M.L.J - 396 (SUSAINATHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. T.VIJAYAN), wherein this Court has held that "Certified copies of sale deed can be accepted for computing market value and parties to the documents need not be examined."
19. Therefore, it is needless to say that as per the decision reported in 2001 (2) CTC - 424 (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER Vs. V.NARASAIAH) rendered by the Honourable Apex Court, examination of parties to a particular document is totally unwarranted and the same dictum has been followed in the decision reported in (2001) 3 M.L.J - 396 (SUSAINATHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. T.VIJAYAN). Since the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners are of recent origin, this Court is in a position to follow the same.
20. Before parting with these Civil Revision Petitions, the Court would like to emphasis that in a petition filed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixing fair rent of a demised premises, examination of parties of documents is not mandatory and the Court can fix fair rent on the basis of market value fixed in relevant documents. In the instant case, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent has not touched the quantum of the market value fixed by the Appellate Authority (Rent Control) as per the market value fixed in Ex.R.3. Therefore, it is totally unwarranted to remit the petition in question to the Rent Controller, so as to enable the revision petitioner/respondent to examine the parties found in Ex.R.3. In view of the foregoing narration of both the factual and legal aspects, this Court has not found any valid force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent and whereas this Court has found considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner and therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed.
21. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs. The common order passed in Rent Control Appeal Nos.45 of 2001 and 59 of 2001 by the Appellate Authority (Rent Control)/Principal Sub-Court, Madurai is confirmed.
mvs.
To The Appellate Authority (Rent Control)/Principal Sub-Court, Madurai