Madras High Court
Indian Bank Rep By Its vs N.Vadivazhagi on 29 January, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
C.R.P.(NPD).No.4123 of 2015:-
Indian Bank rep by its
Assistant General Manager,
Premises, Circle Office (Chennai North)
No.55, Ethiraj Salai,
Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008. ... Petitioner
Vs.
N.Vadivazhagi ... Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, to set aside the judgment and decree
passed in RCA.No.52 of 2013 dated 23.09.2014 on the file of the VII Judge,
Court of Small Causes Chennai confirming the order fixing fair rent in
RCOP.No.1438 of 2008 dated 02.07.2012 on the file of the XIV Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Sripathi
For Respondent : Mr.B.K.Sreenivasan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
C.R.P.(NPD).No.4632 of 2015:-
N.Vadivazhagi ... Petitioner
Vs.
Indian Bank rep by its
Assistant General Manager,
Premises, Circle Office,
(Chennai North)
No.66, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 600 001. ... Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, to set aside the judgment and decree
dated 23.09.2014 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority
(VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) in RCA.No.571 of 2012
confirming the order fair and decreetal order dated 02.07.2012 passed by
the learned Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) and
fix fair rent for the petition premises @ Rs.4,36,834/- per month, payable
from the date of the petition in RCOP.No.1438 of 2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.K.Sreenivasan
For Respondent : No appearance
COMMON ORDER
Both Civil Revision Petitions are directed as against the fair
and decretal order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the learned Rent Control
Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) in
RCA.Nos.52 of 2013 and 571 of 2012 respectively, confirming the fair and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
decretal order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller (XIV
Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) thereby fixing fair rent for the petition
premises @ Rs.1,26,646/- per month.
2. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.4632 of 2015 (herein after called as
"landlady") filed petition in R.C.O.P.No.1438 of 2008 for fixation of fair
rent for the petition premises against the respondent in C.R.P.No.4632 of
2015 (herein after called as "tenant") herein. The learned Rent Controller
fixed the fair rent for the petition premises at Rs.1,26,646/- per month
payable by the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady filed appeal in
RCA.No.52 of 2013 for enhancement of the fair rent and the tenant filed
another appeal in RCA.No.571 of 2012 challenging the fair rent fixed by
the learned Rent Controller. Both the appeals clubbed together and the
learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals by
confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by
the same, the landlady as well as the tenant filed both the Civil Revision
Petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
3. The learned counsel appearing for the landlady submitted that
the petition premises situated at Door No.W100, Second Avenue, Anna
Nagar, Chennai, comprised basement ad measuring 1,426 sq.ft., ground
floor ad measuring 3,241.75 sq.ft., and first floor ad measuring 2,066.70
sq.ft., together with common area in the building and land. The learned Rent
Controller fixed the land value as per Ex.R.5, which is smaller extent of
property in the building constructed by the housing board. In fact, in the
said complex, there is a liquor shop as such, its market value is very less
compared to other nearby building. Whereas the landlady marked Ex.P.4
and Ex.P.6, the sale deeds in respect of the very same locality which have
not been taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller. If the
market value of the land taken as per Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.6, the fair rent would
come two times higher than the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent
Controller.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant
submitted that the landlady did not produce any documents to prove that
there is schedule I amenities in the petition premises. Therefore, the learned
Rent controller ought not to have taken 8% towards schedule I amenities for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
the petition premises. The land value as per the Ex.R6 was taken into
consideration to fix the land value of the premises and therefor the landlady
should not increase the land value of Rs.1,18,08,000/- per ground as market
value. He further submitted that already the tenant was paying a sum of
Rs.1,06,861/- per month, which is fair rent and now the tenant vacated the
premises and handed over the vacant possession to the landlady.
5. Heard, Mr.B.K.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing the for
the landlady and M.L.Sripathi, learned counsel appearing for the tenant.
6. The petition premises is situated at Door No.W100, Second
Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai and it consists basement portion, entire
ground floor and part of the first floor ad measuring total extent of 6734.45
sq.ft. The tenant was paying monthly rent of Rs.1,06,861/- and it is
nonresidential premises. The type of the building is Class 1 building and
Schedule I amenities are available in the premises.
7. According to the landlady, the value of the land in the locality
would be at rupees four crores per ground. To strengthen her contention, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
landlady marked two sale deeds as Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5. The property in
Ex.P.4 situated at Periyakoodal Village and the property in Ex.P.6 situated
at Naduvakkarai Village. Both the properties situated one kilometer
distance from the petition premises. Whereas, the tenant marked Ex.R.5, in
which the property situated at second avenue, viz., next to the petition
premises. Therefore the learned Rent Controller had taken Ex.R.5 to fix the
land value of the petition premises and fixed the land value as
R.1,18,08,000/- per ground.
8. The entire building of the premises valued at Rs.23,65,644/-.
The basic amenities fixed at 15%. After deducting the depreciation for the
building, the value of the building came to Rs.23,23,999/-. The land value
for the extent of 1911.21 sq.ft., fixed as Rs.94,0,153/-. The schedule I
amenities fixed at 8% and total amount came at Rs.1,26,64,568/-. Based on
the Engineer's report for the nonresidential premises, the monthly rent was
calculated at 12%. Accordingly the fair rent was fixed as Rs.1,26,646/-.
Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by
the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
9. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
29.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority,
VII Judge, Small Causes Court,
Chennai
2. The Rent Controller,
XIV Judge, Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4123 & 4632 of 2015
29.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
