Madras High Court
Valli Ammal And Anr. vs P.K. Logaiya Reddiar on 15 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)1MLJ12
Author: Pratap Singh
Bench: Pratap Singh
ORDER Pratap Singh, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the Appeal Suit No. 58 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai in reversing the judgment in O.S. No. 1472 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai. The short facts are: The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit against the revision-petitioner for recovery of Rs. 2,288/- on the allegation that the plaintiff is a tenant of the building bearing door No. 96-A, Big Bazaar Street, Thiruvannamalai on an annual rent of Rs. 900/- under the defendant/landlord that the plaintiff had paid the municipal taxes out of coercion to the tune of Rs. 2,288/- and that the landlords are liable to pay the same to the plaintiff/tenant.
2. The defendants have resisted the claim on several grounds inter alia contending that the claim is barred under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended, that the claim of Rs. 2,288 being only the excess amount by way of increased taxes after 1961 the tenant is liable to pay the same.
3. After an elaborate trial, the trial Court had held that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 and dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 58 of 1985. After hearing the parties, the learned appellate Judge held that tax is payable by the landlord and not by the tenant. So the tenant is entitled to recover the same from the landlord. The learned Judge held that Section 69 of the Contract Act is applicable and so the suit is maintainable. Accordingly, the learned Judge allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and Judgment of the learned District Munsif. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned appellate Judge, this C.R.P is filed.
4. Miss. V. Sumathy the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision/petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant of the building; that fair rent was fixed for the building in R.C.O.P. No. 28 of 1961 at Rs. 900 per annum and that the fair rent, fixed by the court remains at the same rate and there was no increase. The learned Counsel would further submit that this tax claimed by the tenant/plaintiff is the increased tax. After the fair rent was fixed and as such, by virtue of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act; 1960 (hereinafter referred to the Act), the tenant is liable to pay the said tax and even assuming that there is any dispute with regard to increase, it shall be decided only by the Rent Controller and not by the civil court and so the suit was not maintainable.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners herein. According to the respondent/plaintiff/tenant fair rent was fixed in R.C.O.P. No. 28 of 1961 whereas according to revision-petitioners the fair rent was fixed in the said R.C.O.P. No. 26 of 1969. Either way it was fixed in 1969 or in 1961. In para. 7 of the judgment of the appellate court, the learned Judge has held that half yearly tax for this building was Rs. 105.62 in 1965; it was later raised at Rs. 258.23 and it was further raised at Rs. 572. These facts are borne out by the documents Exs. A-1 to A-4. The tax amount claimed by the tenant/plaintiff was for the later period namely from 1973onwards. I shall presently refer to Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. It reads as follows:
6. Increase over rent in certain cases:
(1) Where the amount of the taxes and cesses payable (including any new tax or cess which has become payable) by the landlord in respect of any building to a local authority for any half year commencing on the 1st April, 1950, or on any later date exceeds the amount of the taxes and cesses payable in respect thereof the same or any other local authority for the half-year ending on the 30th day of September, 1946 or for the first complete half after the date on which the building was first let, whichever is later, the landlord shall be entitled to claim such excess from the tenant in additional to rent payble for the building under this Act;
Provided that such excess shall not be recoverable in so far as ut has resulted from an increase of rent in respect of the building.
(2) Any dispute between the landlord and the tenant in regard to any increse claimed under Sub-section (1) shall be decided by the Controler.
7. Since the tax amount which was paid and now claimed in this suit was for the tax amount the excess tax over and above Rs. 105.62 is payable only by the tenant and he cannot make a claim for it, from the landlords. Even that dispute has to be decided only by Rent Controller. That is made implicit by Section 6 Sub-section (2). Where special statute provides a perticular forum for deciding the disputes between the parties, the jurisdiction of the civil court is clearly barred. That particular forum alone will have jurisdiction to decided the disputes between the parties. So, this case is clearly not maintainable.
8. The appellate court has clearly erred in holding that the plaintiff/tenant is entitled to recover the entire tax from the landlords. The lower court is again wrong in holding that civil court has got jurisdiction by resorting to Section 69 of the Contract Act. It cannot be sustained and it is laible to be set aside.
9. In view of the above, this C.R.P. Shall stand allowed setting aside the order of the appellate Court below and restoring the order of then trial court. There will be no order as to costs.