Madras High Court
Girdharilal Chandak & Bros (Huf) vs S.Mehbi Ispahani
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Delivered on : 21.01.2015 Reserved on : 13.11.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRP(NPD)Nos.1657 and 1658 of 2005 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 Girdharilal Chandak & Bros (HUF), Rep by its Karta Yogendra Chandak, S/o. Late Giridharilal Chandak,, No.66, Old No.100, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.S.Mehbi Ispahani 2.S.Ali Ispahani 3.S.Mohammed Ispahani .. Respondents Prayer in CRP(NPD).No.1657 of 2007: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 26.04.2005 in RCA.No.716 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Small Causes Court at Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) enhancing the amount of fair rent which was awarded by the learned Rent Controller (XIV Small Causes Judge, Chennai) in his decreetal order dated 23.04.2004 in RCOP.No.2480 of 1988. Prayer in CRP(NPD).No.1658 of 2007: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 26.04.2005 in RCA.No.627 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Small Causes Court at Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) enhancing the amount of fair rent which was awarded by the learned Rent Controller (XIV Small Causes Judge, Chennai) in his decreetal order dated 23.04.2004 in RCOP.No.2480 of 1988. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.S.Chandra Rao in both CRPs. For M/s.AL.Gandhimathi For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Rajagolpalan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Balachander C O M M O N O R D E R
The revision petitioner in these civil revision petitions was the tenant under the respondents/landlord. The present proceedings are arising out of fixation of fair rent in respect of the premises i.e., Land and Building bearing Old Door No.1/4, New No.35, Anna Salai (Mount Road), Chennai-600 002, admeasuring 2 grounds and 98 Sq.ft or thereabouts and specifically pertains to ground and first floor of the said premises.
2. The present case is having a long and chequered history and the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows. For the sake of convenience, the revision petitioner in these revisions is referred as the tenant and the respondents are referred as landlords.
2.1. The landlords filed RCOP.No.311/2006 on the file of the Rent Controller/Court of Small Causes-VI, Chennai, against M/s.Giridarilal Chandak and Brothers (HUF), represented by its Karta, late Giridarilal Chandak, seeking eviction under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act No.18 of 1960), alleging that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of the difference between fair rent fixed by the Court and the contractual rent. The tenant contended that the fixation of fair rent has not reached finality on account of pendency of these revision petitions.
2.2. The Rent Controller, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, passed an order of eviction, vide fair and decreetal order dated 26.02.2007, ordering eviction of the tenant therein and aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA.No.267/2007 and it was also dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, vide judgment dated 24.04.2009.
2.3. The above said HUF, aggrieved by the above said judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Court of Small Causes-VIII, Chennai, in confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, has filed CRP(NPD).No.2909/2010 and pendency of the revision, in place of the deceased Karta, his son Yogendra Chandak came on record as Karta, vide order dated 02.08.2011 in M.P.No.2 of 2010.
2.4. CRP(NPD).No.2909/2010 arose out of the fact that the landlords filed a petition in RCOP.No.2480/1988 for fixation of fair rent. The contractual rent was Rs.1,000/- per month. The Rent Controller, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, has fixed the fair rent of Rs.31,591/- per month. The tenant as well as the landlord, aggrieved by the quantum of fair rent, filed RCA.Nos.627 and 716/2004 respectively on the file of the Appellate Authority/Court of Small Causes, Chennai and the Appellate Authority disposed of the appeals, vide common judgment dated 26.04.2005, enhancing the fair rent to Rs.43,084/- per month, payable from the date of petition i.e., 01.09.1988 and aggrieved by the same, the tenant has filed these civil revision petitions.
2.5. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that at the time of filing the present civil revision petitions, the tenant did not file any petition for stay, may be on the presumption that he may be directed to deposit some portion of the arrears of fair rent. This Court, while admitting these civil revision petitions on 28.10.2005, has passed the following order:
The revisions are admitted. The tenant/revision petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lakhs) as fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority at the rate of Rs.43,084/- per month, to the credit of RCOP.No.2480 of 1988 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, on or before 31.1.2006. On such deposit being made, the Esplanade Branch, High Court Extension counter, Chennai-600 104, initially for a period of 3 years and shall be renewed periodically, till the disposal of the revisions. 2.6. The tenant, aggrieved by the said interim order passed in these revision petitions, filed SLP(C).Nos.25728 25729 of 2005 on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and vide order dated 03.01.2006, both the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by observing that the present revision petitions are to be disposed of expeditiously.
2.7. CRP(NPD)No.2909/2010 was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 02.08.2011 [(2011) 5 CTC 252]. A perusal of the above said order would disclose that challenging the order of eviction passed in RCOP.No.311/2006, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA.No.267/2007 and prayed for stay of the order of eviction, however the Appellate Authority did not grant any interim order and therefore, the landlords levied execution in E.P.No.226/2007 and the Court, executing the decree for eviction, has ordered delivery of the premises. The tenant filed MPSR.No.8407/2007, praying for stay of the delivery and the said petition was dismissed.
2.8. The tenant, aggrieved by the order of delivery passed in E.P.No.226/2007 and the dismissal of the stay petition in MPSR.No.8407/2007, filed two revision petitions in CRP.Nos.1509 and 1510 of 2007 on the file of this Court and both the revision petitions were dismissed, vide common order dated 25.10.2007. The tenant filed SLP.Nos.7977 7978 of 2008, on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, challenging the above said common order passed in the revision petitions and both the Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed.
2.9. It is important to be pointed out that since the order of delivery passed by the executing Court has reached finality, the decree for eviction was put into execution by the landlords and also took delivery of the premises on 27.04.2007, which is the subject matter of the present revision petitions and the learned Judge has also recorded the fact that the superstructure standing on the land was also brought down and as on that today, the original superstructure is not in existence. The learned Judge has elaborately considered the points urged by the tenant and found that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of difference between the contractual rent and fair rent and thereby, sustained the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The present dispute pertains to quantum of fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/erstwhile tenant made the following submissions:
3.1. The revision petitioner became the tenant of the petition property in the year 1957 under the forefathers of the respondents/landlords and the original rent payable was Rs.500/- per month and later it was increased to Rs.700/- per month during September, 1963 and the tenant has also spent more than Rs.3 lakhs for maintenance and repairs of the property and the landlords had also given assurance that they will not seek their eviction. A registered Lease Deed dated 29.12.1967 under Ex.R1 was also came to be executed and the terms of the lease deed speaks among other things that the monthly rent payable is Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the co-owners/landlords at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and the lease is for a period of 20 years and can be renewed as decided by the landlord and the tenant on the same terms. The tenant was also authorized to make additions or alterations to the premises, install such equipments with an understanding that it has to bear the entire costs and the tenant has to pay half of the corporation property tax for each year and the another half has to be paid to be landlords.
3.2. One of the co-owners, namely Thiru S.M.Ispahani, filed C.S.No.40/1973 on the file of this Court, praying for a declaration to declare the above said lease deed dated 29.12.1967 as invalid and not binding on him and the said Suit, after contest, was dismissed on 28.02.1979 and the appeal in O.S.A.No.111/1979 was also dismissed on 14.12.1992. The tenant, in terms of the lease deed, has spent more than Rs.20 lakhs and also put up additional constructions and made alterations in the building and on the expiry of 20 years of lease period, requested for extension of lease for a further period of 20 years as per the same terms and conditions during September, 1996 and the landlord did not respond to the same and however, filed RCOP.No.2480/1988 praying for fixation of fair rent and therefore, the tenant was constrained to file O.S.No.1833 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for decree of specific performance for extending the lease for a further period of 20 years on the same terms and conditions in terms of the lease deed dated 29.12.1967 and also for permanent injunction, restraining the landlord from taking eviction proceedings before the Court of Rent Controller. The said Suit was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.1997 and the tenant has field A.S.No.169/1998, challenging the dismissal of the Suit and it was also dismissed on 27.01.2003 and the tenant has filed S.A.No.1030/2005 rejecting the prayer for permanent injunction and the landlord has filed S.A.No.1644/2004, aggrieved by the decree granting specific performance for extending the lease for another period of 20 years and it is submitted by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties that both the Second Appeals are pending.
3.3. It is the first and foremost submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that even as per the recitals in the lease deed, it is entitled to have extension of lease for a further period of 20 years from 01.01.1988 and it has invested substantial amounts by making alterations and repairs and therefore, in all fairness, the lease deed ought to have been extended for another period of 20 years. In substance, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/erstwhile tenant that there is automatic extension of lease on the terms and conditions found in Ex.R1- Registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.1967.
3.4. On the merits of the reason assigned by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in fixing the fair rent of Rs.43,084/-, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority has committed grave error in arriving at the valuation on the basis of the report of the landlords' Engineer and he has no expert or competence to speak about the market value of the land and building, based on which fair rent has to be fixed. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the guideline value cannot be the sole basis to determine/arrive at the market value for the purpose of fixation of fair rent and the Courts below had placed reliance upon the sale deed pertaining to nearby property and the valuation of the said property was done on the basis of guideline value. The sale deeds relied on by the landlords ought not to have been taken into consideration by the Courts below for the reason that the actual area itself is in doubt. So far as the amenities are concerned, admittedly the tenant had spent enormous amount by putting up additional constructions and alterations and also provided some more amenities and the Courts below ought not to have valued the construction on the basis of alleged value of Schedule amenities.
3.5. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that there is no parking facility provided for vehicles and no open space is also available and amenities like drainage and bore-well were also made by the tenant and moreover the metro water tax paid by the tenant has not been adjusted and the balcony has been constructed by the tenant. Therefore, the sum and substance of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority had failed to apply their mind directly to the voluminous oral and documentary evidence and the Appellate Authority has committed grave error in fixing the fair rent of Rs.43,084/- and prayed for interference.
3.6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(1)Srinivasa Gounder v. K.Venkatesan [1997-3-L.W. 193] (2)T.Mayura Malliah v. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust [2013-5-L.W.172] (3)Sakthi & Co. v. Shree Desigachary [2006 (2) CTC 433] (4)T.H.S. Rahmath Fathima v. T.K.Kader Mohideen [1996-2-L.W.637] (5)P.Ram Reddy and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad and Others [(1995) 2 SCC 305] (6)Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru and Others v. Jasti Rahini (Smt) and Another [ (1995) 1 SCC 717] (7)K.Ramanathan (died) and Others v. B.K.Nalini Jayanthi [1996-2-L.W. 658] (8) P.Savithri Padmanabhan (deceased) and Others v. G.R.Nithyanandam and Another [(2013) 6 MLJ 405] (9)Land Acquisition Officer v. V.Narasaiah [(2001) 1 T.L.N.J. (SC) 33] (10)A.V.Gopalakrishnan v. O.L.V.R. Paramanandam [(2007) 4 MLJ 189] (11)N.Kalidas v. K.P.Subbaiyan [2013-5-L.W. 475] (12)V.S.Kanodia, etc. v. A.L. Muthu (D) Thru. L.Rs & another [2012 (4) CTC 889] (13)Ranjit Kumar Dutta v. Tapan Kumar Shaw and another [AIR 1997 Calcutta 278]
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords would urge that admittedly the decree for eviction obtained in RCOP.No.311/2006, which was confirmed in RCA.No.267/2007, was put into execution and the possession of the premises in question was also taken through the process of Court as early as on 27.04.2007 and the superstructure standing thereon was also demolished and the only question to be decided in these civil revision petitions is to the quantum of fair rent arrived by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlords would submit that while the present revision petitions were entertained, this Court has passed interim orders on 28.10.2005, directing the revision petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.85 lakhs as fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority @ Rs.43,084/- per month to the credit of RCOP.No.2480/1988 on the file of the Court of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai on or before 31.01.2006 and on such deposit being made, the said Court was directed to invest the same in Indian Bank, Esplanade Branch, High Court Extension counter, Chennai-600 104, initially for a period of three years and shall be renewed periodically till the disposal of the revisions and the tenant made a challenge to the said order by filing SLP(C).Nos.25728-25729/2005 on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and both the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on 03.01.2006 with an observation that this Court is to dispose of the present revisions expeditiously and the tenant did not comply with the said order.
5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords that the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority had applied their mind to the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and especially, the Appellate Authority, who, on an independent application of mind to the entire materials placed before it, has rightly fixed the fair rent of Rs.43,084/- and since the Courts below had concurrently arrived at the finding that the fair rent has to be fixed in respect of the premises in question, the same cannot be lightly interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords that huge arrears have to be paid by the revision petitioners and pendency of the second appeals would have not bearing on the disposal of these revisions and prayed for dismissal of these revisions with exemplary costs.
6. Insofar as M.P.No.1/2014 filed by the revision petitioner for production of additional evidence i.e., both oral and documentary evidence, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords that such petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(1)Bank of Baroda represented by its Chairman v. Mahendra Dadha and two Others [1982 (2) T.N.L.J. 319] (2)Voora Mahalakshmamma v. C.Veera Reddy [(1994) 2 MLJ 383] (3)Sundram Steel Co., v. P.Radhakrishnan and two Others [1997-2-L.W. 501] (4)M/s.The Calcutta Chemicals and Limited v. Taiyeb Yusufbhai Vakharia and another [1999 (III) CTC 202] (5)R.Sambandan alias Babu v. S.Krishnaveni [2001 (2) CTC 321]
7. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record in the form of typed set of documents filed by the revision petitioner as well as by the respondents and also perused the original records and considered the decisions relied on by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties.
8. As already pointed out in the earlier paragraphs, the superstructure, which was the subject matter of lease under Ex.R1 dated 29.12.1967, is no longer in existence as the delivery of the same has been taken through the process of Court and consequently, the revision petitioner is no longer in possession of the same. It is also brought to the knowledge of the Court that even in the earlier proceedings in CRP(NPD)No.2909/2010 which was dismissed, vide order dated 02.08.2011 [(2011) 5 CTC 252], it has been mentioned that the superstructure has already been demolished. Therefore, as on today, the revision petitioner is not in possession of the superstructure for which the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller has been enhanced by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Engineer appointed on behalf of the landlords, namely K.B.Subramaniam Associates, after inspecting the property, has given a report under Ex.P2 and one of the associates of the said firm, namely P.Menon was examined as PW2. Similarly, the tenant had appointed Thiru S.Raghavendra Rao, Chartered Engineer to give valuation report and he inspected the property and gave the report under Ex.R30 and he was examined as RW2.
9. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the valuation report given by PW2 was based on guideline value and it cannot be taken as market value and placed reliance upon the decisions in A.V.Gopalakrishnan v. O.L.V.R. Paramanandam [(2007) 4 MLJ 189] and N.Kalidas v. K.P.Subbaiyan [2013-5-L.W. 475].
10. In A.V.Gopalakrishnan v. O.L.V.R. Paramanandam [(2007) 4 MLJ 189], it has been held that market value cannot be determined based on the guideline line and the information given by the expert cannot be considered as an evidence for any purpose and it is not admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
11. In N.Kalidas v. K.P.Subbaiyan [2013-5-L.W. 475], this Court on the facts of the case found that except the oral evidence of the revision petitioner/landlord and the respondent/tenant, no other material is available on record before the Court to give a clarity about the nature of the petition mentioned property and therefore, opined that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down all the relevant features of the petition mentioned building with the assistance of a qualified Civil Engineer to estimate the market value of the building and to submit his report.
12. A perusal of Ex.P2 and Ex.R30 and the oral evidence of PW2 and RW2 would disclose that with regard to cost of the land, it is admittedly located in a very important locality at Anna Salai (Mount Road), Chennai-600002 and it was opined under Ex.P2 that from 1982 there is an increase in the cost of the land and it is sudden and very abnormal and the site in question is located in Anna Salai. The said report has also taken into consideration the registered sale deed dated 16.09.1985 in respect of commercial property bearing Door No.826, Anna Salai, Tarapore Towers comprised in S.Nos.3282/2 part and 3283 admeasuring 12.20 grounds with a plinth area of 4168 sq.ft. and the cost of the land was worked out on that basis. Another registered sale deed dated 28.03.1984 was also taken into consideration while fixing the market value. In Ex.R30 also the registered sale deed document No.1101/1980 was taken into consideration. In Ex.P2, the fair rent in the opinion of the Engineer appointed on behalf of the landlord was assessed at Rs.47,841/-. As per Ex.R30, the monthly rent per annum is Rs.843.16. The respective Engineers were also examined. The Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority had considered the value of the land in extenso.
13. A faint attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that without examining the parties concerned with the sale deeds, no reliance can be placed upon and in support of his submissions placed reliance upon the devision in Inder Singh v. UOR [1995 (3) SCC 349]. However the said judgment was considered by a larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Land Acquisition Officer v. V.Narasaiah [(2001) 1 T.L.N.J. (SC) 33] and held that a certified copy of a document registered may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document, just like any other evidence and it is for the Court to weigh all the pros and congeal decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned. The said judgment was also considered in P.Savithri Padmanabhan (deceased) and Others v. G.R.Nithyanandam and another [(2013) 6 MLJ 405] and therefore, the submission made in that regard does not merit acceptance.
14. The Rent Controller has fixed the value of the land at Rs.17 lakhs and the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration of the fact that the property in question is situated near Mount Road, which is a prime locality and fixed the land value at Rs.19 lakhs. It is not as if the market value of the land of each site was arrived on the basis of guideline value and in fact, both Ex.P2 and Ex.R30 had taken into consideration the sale deeds pertaining to the property located in the said area and therefore, this Court finds no error in the reasons assigned by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in arriving at the land value at Rs.19 lakhs per ground.
15. Insofar as the renewal of original lease is concerned, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority has considered the decisions relied on by the revision petitioner and held that the Rent Control Act is a complete code and applies to contractual as well as statutory tenancies.
16. The vires of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960) was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in M/s.Raval and Co., v. K.G.Ramachandran and Others [AIR 1967 Madras 57 (FB)] and the vires of the said Act has been upheld. The said decision was put to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 818. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by a majority view, has held that the fair rent is fixed for the building and is payable by whoever is the tenant whether a contractual or a statutory tenant and what is fixed is not the fair rent payable by the tenant to the landlord but fair rent for the building and the minority view is that the landlord is not given the right to apply for fixation of fair rent during the subsistence of the contractual tenancy and when the contact of tenancy is lawfully determined, the landlord is entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent. In the light of the majority decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in AIR 1984 SC 818, even assuming that the revision petitioner/tenant is entitled to further extension of lease, which is also the subject matter of S.A.Nos.1030/2005 and 1644/2007, still it is open to the respondent/landlord to apply for fixation of fair rent and therefore, the submission in that regard is liable to be rejected.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant made a valiant attempt by submitting that the present case is relating to renewal and not extension and there is automatic extension of lease in terms of Ex.R1 and in this regard, placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Ranjit Kumar Dutta v. Tapan Kumar Shaw and another [AIR 1997 Calcutta 278]. The consideration of the said question at best can be an academic exercise, as admittedly the revision petitioner has been divested of the possession by executing the decree for eviction and as pointed out earlier, after eviction the entire superstructure was demolished and it is no longer in existence. That apart S.A.Nos.1030/2005 and 1644/2007, pertaining to specific performance of renewal of lease deeds is also pending adjudication and therefore, the points urged by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant does not merit acceptance.
18. Insofar as the availability of basic amenities and extent of land are concerned, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority had taken into consideration the evidence of PW2 and RW2 and as well as Ex.P2 and Ex.R30 and found that provision of 10% towards basic amenities is just and proper and with regard to the extent of land, the Appellate Authority found that the second and third floor construction put up by the tenant cannot be considered and fixed the extent of land of 4738 sq.ft. Insofar as the schedule amenities are concerned, the Appellate Authority found that in the absence of documents marked on the side of the tenant to show that the he had put up the same, has given 1% for Schedule I amenities and accordingly calculated the fair rent as stated below:
RCC roofing in ground floor 4738 sq.ft.
4738 x Rs.81/- Rs.3,83,778/- RCC roofing in First floor 4738 sq.ft. 4738 x Rs.76/- Rs.3,60,088/- Balcony in first floor -356 sq.ft. 356 x Rs.60/- Rs. 21,360/- Staircase room 110 sq.ft. 110 x Rs.76/- Rs. 8,360/- ..................... Rs.7,73,586/- Basic amenities at 10% Rs. 77,359/- ..................... Rs.8,50,945/- .................... Depreciation at 1% - 8,50,945 x 0.605 Rs.5,14,822/- Land value at Rs.19 lakhs per ground 4738 x 19,00,000/- ............................. Rs.37,50,917/- 2400 ..................... Rs.42,65,739/- Schedule-I amenities at 1% Rs. 42,657/- ..................... Rs.43,08,396/- ...................... For non-residential purpose fair rent is calculated at 12% per annum Hence 43,08,396 x 12 ..................... -Rs.43,083.06/- (or) Rs.43,084/- 12 x 100
19. The other decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant lay down the proposition that the guideline value cannot be the basis for arriving at the market value and the market value for a particular survey number is the result of contract between the parties and the same is to be proved by evidence. There cannot be any difficulty in accepting the above said proposition laid down in various judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. But, as pointed out in the earlier paragraph, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the reports of both the Engineers and their oral testimonies and rightly arrived at the fair rent.
20. Insofar as M.P.No.1 of 2014 filed by the revision petitioner for production of additional evidence is concerned, a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the said petition would disclose that the revision petitioner discovered Doc.Nos.778/1988, 777/1988, 3190/1987, 802/1988 and would contend that the said documents were not produced earlier on their behalf, not withstanding the exercise of due diligence. Per contra, the respondent/landlord in their counter affidavit took a stand that even assuming without admitting that the said documents would have application, the revision petitioner miserably failed to adduce any tenable reason for production of additional evidence and by placing reliance upon the decisions in S.K.Babu Syed and another v. A.Zubaida Bee [1991-2-L.W.249] Voora Mahalakshmamma v. C.Veera Reddy [(1994) 2 MLJ 383] and Bank of Baroda rep. By its Chairman v. Mahendra Dadha and two others [1982- T.N.L.J. 319] would contend that the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to receive additional evidence.
21. A careful scrutiny and analysis of the judgments relied on by the respondent/tenant has laid down the proposition that there cannot be any absolute bar that documents cannot be received in evidence, but the fact remains that additional documents which form part of additional evidence were registered during the year 1987 and 1988 respectively and the revision petitioner has failed to offer any tenable or plausible reason for the non-production of the same before the trial Court. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that it is the stand of the revision petitioner that unless the parties to the concerned documents are examined, it cannot be received in evidence and whereas the revision petitioner is seeking to mark the documents in these revisions. Since the said application is strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any plausible or tenable reason as to the belated production of the said documents and even for the sake of arguments it can be received as additional evidence, still some more material is required to substantiate the contents of the said documents, this petition lacks merit. Therefore, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is dismissed.
22. This Court has independently applied its mind to the entire materials placed before it and also perused the original records and on a careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence and the submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties, is of the view that the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on due application of mind to the entire materials placed before it, has rightly fixed the fair rent of Rs.43,084/- payable from the date of the petition. As already pointed out, the revision petitioner is no longer in possession of the property as he has been evicted through due process of law as early as on 27.04.2007 and the superstructure is no longer in existence. The learned Judge in CRP(NPD).No.2909/2010 [2011-5-CTC 252] has categorically recorded the finding that the revision petitioner has committed willful default in payment of rent fixed by the Courts below and it is not relatable to the interim order passed by this Court in these revisions and the said order has also reached finality.
23. Therefore, in the light of the above said factual aspects coupled with the legal position, the grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant are unsustainable and the present revision petitions lacks merit.
24. In the result, both Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2005 made in RCA.Nos.716 of 2004 and 627 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Small Causes Court at Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority). No costs.
21.01.2015 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No jvm To VII Small Causes Court at Chennai.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN. J jvm Common Order in CRP(NPD)Nos.1657 and 1658 of 2005 21.01.2015