Madras High Court
P.R. Kandasaamy vs B. Arumugam on 25 February, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1437 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1437 and 1438 of 2019
P.R. Kandasaamy, ... Petitioner
Vs.
B. Arumugam ... Respondent
Common Prayer: These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25
of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 as
amended by Act 23 of 1973) praying for to set aside the Judgment and
decree dated 17.12.2018 made in R.C.A.Nos.460 and 535 and of 2017 on
the file of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Appellate
Authority) at Chennai, in reversing with the Judgment and decreetal
order dated 21.06.2017 made in R.C.O.P. No.340 of 2016 on the file of
the XI Judge, Small Causes (Rent Controller) Chennai.
For Petitioner ... Mr.K. Doraisami (Senior counsel)
(For Muthumani Doraisamy)
For Respondent ... Mr.S.T.Raja
(For Om Sai Ram)
****
ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 25 of
the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended
by Act 23 of 1973) praying for to set aside the Judgment and decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1437 of 2019
dated 17.12.2018 made in R.C.A.Nos.460 and 535 and of 2017 on the
file of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Appellate
Authority) at Chennai, in reversing with the Judgment and decreetal
order dated 21.06.2017 made in R.C.O.P. No.340 of 2016 on the file of
the XI Judge, Small Causes (Rent Controller) Chennai.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner and
the respondent is the tenant in the petition premises. The petitioner-
owner has filed RCOP No.340 of 2016 before the Small Causes Court,
Chennai seeking for to fix the fair rent for the petition premises under the
occupation of the respondent/tenant at Rs.40,000/- and direct the
respondent herein to pay the same from the date of filing of the petition.
The same was partly allowed by order dated 21.06.2017 having fixed the
rent of Rs.9,779/- per month for the petition premises. Being aggrieved
by the aforesaid order, both the petitioner-owner and the respondent-
tenant have filed the appeals in R.C.A. No.460 of 2017 and R.C.A.
No.535 of 2017 under Section 23(1)(b) of TNB (L&RC) Act, on the file
of the Small Causes Court, Chennai. The Appellate Court, after hearing
both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1437 of 2019
dismissed the appeal in R.C.A.460 of 2017 filed by the petitioner-owner
and allowed the appeal in R.C.A.No.535 of 2017 filed by the respondent-
tenant by Judgment dated 17.12.2018 modifying the fair rent to
Rs.5,300/- per month from Rs.9.779/- per month for the petition
premises. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-owner has filed the present
both Civil Revision Petitions against the orders in both appeals.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Rent Control Appellate Authority had failed to consider the pleadings,
evidence, documents, admitted facts and several other aspects while
fixing the fair rent of Rs.5,300/- per month to the petition premises.
While the petition premises is situated in the commercial area
with all basic amenities, the rent of the same has been considered very
low by both the Courts below. The fair and reasonable rent of the
Schedule premises will fetch more than 40,000/- per month as the
schedule premises is situated in a very busy area and commercial locality
and the premises commands all locational advantages. The learned Rent
Control Appellate Authority failed to give any valid reasons or findings
for having fixed of fair rent of Rs.5,300/- per month to the petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1437 of 2019
premises even though the judgment speaks about the highest market
value, basic amenities and locational advantages. Both Judgements have
been passed blindly relied on the averments of the respondent/tenant's
engineer which is totally unfair and the same is liable to be rejected. The
order of the Appellate Court is miscalculated the actual area under the
use and occupation of the respondent-tenant as the findings are based on
the report of R.W.1 and not of P.W.1. The valuation of Sq.feet of the
premises has not been calculated properly and the Appellate Court has
taken only 69.55 Sq.Feet in the said petition premises to calculate land
value and ignoring the calculation of the Trial Court having 139.11 Sq.
Feet in the said premises. Hence, as there is no proper reasons followed
in fixing the fair rent in the order passed by the Appellate Court, the
same is untenable and liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
tenant/respondent has inducted into the said petition premises as tenant
in the year 1975 for rent of Rs.75/ per month having paid an advance of
Rs.1000/-. Right from the year 1975, the tenant is paying the rent every
month without any default even though the rent has been gradually
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1437 of 2019
increased upto Rs.2,550/- per month. Further, the schedule premises is
not situated in a very busy and high commercial locality and does not
command all locational advantages as stated in the petition. However,
the Appellate Court has fixed the fair rent of Rs.5,300/- per month after
considering the entire oral and documentary evidence. As it is fair and
reasonable rent, the respondent herein is paying the rent of Rs.5,300/- per
month for the schedule premises up-to-date without any default. While
being so, these Civil Revision Petitions challenging the orders of the
Appellate Court is not sustainable and liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard, the learned learned counsel on either side as well as
perused the material available on record.
6. On a perusal of record, it is seen that the portion rented out to
the respondent/tenant is located in the highly commercial locality and
surrounded by all commercial establishments. However, the extent of the
portion occupied by the respondent/tenant is around 100 Square feet and
he is rented out from the year 1975 in the same locality and paying rent
without any default. Under such circumstances, this Court made a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1437 of 2019
suggestions to both parties to settle the issue by way of amicable
conciliation and discussion between the parties. Accordingly, the learned
counsel for the respondent on instruction from his client accepted to pay
the rent of Rs.8,000/- per month for the said petition premises finally.
Even though the respondent insisted upto 8,500/- per month, the rent of
Rs.8,000/- per month offered by the respondent/tenant has been accepted
by the appellant/owner of the premises without any objection. This
Court after endorsing their statement in the petition with regard to
amicable settlement between both parties, in fixation of the fair rent of
Rs.8,000/- per month for the petition mentioned premises, the
respondent/tenant is hereby directed to pay the rent of Rs.8,000/- per
month from the date of filing of RCOP. Further it has been stated by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant that as the
10% hike in the rent would be done every year after the lease period is
over, this Court may direct the petitioner/owner to hike the 10% rent
once two years and not one year, after lease period is over enabling to the
respondent/tenant to pay the rent of Rs.8,000/- per month as fixed by this
Court in view of the business is fell down due to Corna pandemic
situation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1437 of 2019
7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
case, the respondent/tenant is hereby directed to pay the arrears of Rent
within a period of six months from the date of this order, as if the
respondent/tenant has paid rent every month as fixed by the Appellate
Court without any default and the petitioner/owner is directed to hike
10% on rent once two years and not one year after lease period is over, as
at present the fair rent has been fixed to Rs.8,000/- per month from
Rs.5,300/- per month as fixed by the Appellate Court enabling to the
respondent-tenant to pay the remaining arrears of rent since there was
National lock down due to Covid-19 pandemic.
8. With the above directions, these Civil Revision Petitions are
disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed if
any. There shall be no order as to costs.
25.02.2021
Lbm
Index: Yes/No.
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
Internet: Yes/No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1437 of 2019
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
lbm
To:
The VII Judge, Court of Small Causes
(Rent Control Appellate Authority) at Chennai,
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1437 and 1438 of 2019
25.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
