Madras High Court
P. Sivachandran And Anr. vs M.P. Purushotham on 12 August, 2005
Author: T.V. Masilamani
Bench: T.V. Masilamani
ORDER T.V. Masilamani, J.
1. Civil Revision Petition No. 285 of 2002 has been filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No. 607 of 1996 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai dated 29.6.2001.
2. Civil Revision Petition No. 477 of 2002 has been filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No. 609 of 1996 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority (7th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai dated 29.6.2001.
3. Rent Control Petitions No. 329 and 333 of 1994 were filed by the landlord against the tenants under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called as "Tamil Nadu Act 18/1960") before the Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, to fix the fair rent in respect of Block No. 1 in House and ground bearing door No. 138, Coral Merchant Street, Madras-1 and Block No. 3 at first floor of the above premises respectively. Aggrieved by the orders of the Rent Controller dated 10.1.1996, the landlord preferred appeals in R.C.A. No. 609 and 607 of 1996 respectively, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai and now, the present revision petitions have been filed by the tenants against the judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Since the above said revision petitions relate to the same questions, they have been taken up jointly for consideration in view of the facts and circumstances, narrated above.
4. The learned Rent Controller, having analysed the evidence adduced by both sides, fixed the fair rents in respect of the premises under the occupation of the tenants as follows:
In R.C.O.P. No. 329 and 333 of 1994, the fair rents have been fixed in respect of the premises mentioned in the schedule at Rs. 1226.87 and Rs. 1220.41 per month respectively. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, having analysed the recorded evidence in the light of the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, revised the above said fair rents and fixed at Rs. 1510 and Rs. 1453 per month respectively in respect of the premises, covered by the petitions and allowed the appeals. Hence, the above civil revision petitions.
5. It is seen from the records in the revision petitions that, in order to ascertain the plinth area of the premises under the occupation of the tenants, separate engineers were taken by the landlord and tenants and they have submitted their reports separately. It is not disputed that both the reports of the engineers have not given uniform opinion even with reference to the plinth area.
6. But on the contrary, it is evident from the reports and the plans filed by the respective engineers that they have given different measurements and plinth areas of the buildings involved in these cases. Similarly, they are not also uniform in giving the site values of the respective premises.
7. A careful reading of the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller would disclose that they had not taken into account the relative position of the rent payable in respect of similar building in the vicinity of the petition premises, the cost of construction of the building, the rates adopted by the Public Works Department while computing the cost of construction of the building of the petition premises, the market value prevailing as on date in respect of the site in which the petition premises is put up and such other relevant factors while fixing the fair rent for the petition premises.
8. This Court in an earlier judgment C. Rajagopal v. Mallika Begum, , rendered in a case under similar circumstances, where two sets of engineer reports were filed, each containing different particulars in respect of the same premises, it was held that the proper course would be for appointment of a Commissioner under Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 18/1960. Justice S.S. Subramani, as he then was, referred to the principle laid down in an earlier decision, A.K. Panchatchara Mudaliar v. A.N. Srinivasan, 1991 (2) LW 268, which reads as follows:
"In a case arising under Section 14(l)(b) of the Act, the landlord will examine one engineer or an expert to prove that the building is in a dilapidated condition, while the tenant will examine another expert to prove that the building is in a good condition. In order that the Court may have an impartial report of the situation, the Legislature introduced Section 18-A enabling the Rent Controller to appoint Commissioner."
9. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the divergent views expressed by the engineers, who had submitted the reports with reference to the same building, it is not safe to rely upon such reports to arrive at the fair rents and therefore, it has become all the more necessary in these cases to appoint a Commissioner as per Section 18-A of the Act, 18/60. It is, no doubt, true that the Rent Controller has been vested with powers under Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 18/1960, to appoint a Commissioner in order to find out the actual measurements of the buildings, plinth area, site value, value of the building, etc. in order to arrive at the fair rent.
10. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the decisions, Ethirajulu Naidu v. Hajee Abubaker and Sons, 1964 (2) MLJ 98; R. Subbarajulu v. Sulaliman and Ors., 1982 (1) MLJ 349; Savani Transports Private Ltd v. N. Jamal Mohammed, 1989 (1) LW 172; Voora Mahalakshmamma v. Veera Reddy, 1994 (2) MLJ 383; and M.R. Easwaran v. C. Keppaiya Chettiar and Ors., 1995 (2) MLJ 290, and considering the fact that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not followed the procedures laid down under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 in fixing the fair rents in these cases, this Court is of the further opinion that it is all the more necessary to remit the matters back to the learned Rent Controller for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations.
11. In view of such circumstances, the above Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, with no order as to costs and the matters are remanded to the concerned Rent Controller for disposal and the Rent Controller is directed to appoint a Commissioner to be assisted by a competent Surveyor from the Survey Department and another qualified engineer, so as to measure the demised premises and ascertain the physical features, site value, building value, etc. as directed by the Rent Controller and submit a report within three months. However, the Rent Controller is hereby further directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, without insisting upon any formal application therefor, so as to receive the reports and necessary plans within the time as directed above.