Madras High Court
S. Basavamma And Anr. vs T. Lakshmikantha Rathnamma on 18 December, 1953
Equivalent citations: AIR1953MAD827, (1952)IMLJ772
JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the appellate order of the learned Small Cause Judge of Madras in H.R.A. No. 574 of 1951 modifying the order of the House Rent Controller in H.R.C. No. 2391 of 1951.
2. The facts are the premises in this case is Door No. 1, Sivaprakasa Mudaliar Road, near Pondy Bazaar, Thyagarayanagar, Madras. The respondent before me is the owner of the property and the petitioners are the tenants. These tenants entered into an agreement on 7th September, 1950 (Exhibit P-9) under which they agreed to pay Rs. 150 for the entire house excepting two rooms which were placed at the disposal of the landlady for her occupation. The tenants are said to have paid rent for some months and then filed H.R.C. No. 2391 before the rent controller, requesting him to fix a fair rent. He reduced the rent from Rs. 150 to Rs. 80. Thereupon, there was an appeal to the Small Cause Judge provided for under the Act, and he revised the order of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the fair rent for this house would be Rs. 130 per month. This order is the subject-matter of revision before me.
3. In revision, I find that the legality and propriety of the order made by the learned Small Cause Judge are above reproach. His conclusion is based upon sound grounds. He has fixed the sum of Rs. 130 per month, taking into consideration the following factors. The tenants themselves have voluntarily agreed to pay, Rs. 150 under Exhibit P-9 and placed at the disposal of the landlady two small rooms. Then, this rent, as a matter of fact, has been paid for some months. It is only subsequently they have gone before the rent controller. It is found that this house is a terraced house consisting of decent accommodation and a garage as was apparent to the learned Judge, from the plan which had been filed in the case. The municipal assessment for the half year 1950-51 was fixed at Rs. 207-3-9 on an annual letting value of Rs. 1800. Detailed evidence was also adduced before the rent con troller as well as the Small Cause Judge showing that the landlady had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 26,097-4-3 for constructing this house which even working at a moderate rate of 9 per cent would certainly make the Rs. 130 fixed by the Small Cause Judge as fair rent. In addition, the Small Cause Judge also considered the evidence of the rent of an adjacent building. The evidence no doubt was not full and adequate, but even this evidence which was adduced showed that this sum of Rs. 130 fixed for the house compared favourably with that of the other property in the vicinity.
4. In these circumstances, where the Small Cause Judge has given sound and adequate reasons for revising the order of the Rent Controller, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the rent of Rs. 80 was too low and that the sum of Rs. 150 omitting the two rooms was probably a little too high and that the sum of Rs. 130 is a fair rent.
5. Therefore, I decline to interfere with the order made by the Small Cause Judge and dismiss this Civil Revision Petition devoid of merits with costs.