Madras High Court
J.A.Rahman (Died) vs Central Bank Of India on 22 July, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.23393 of 2018
C.R.P.(NPD).No.4179 of 2018
1. J.A.Rahman (died)
2. Jalal Tajunissa Begum
3. Jalal Mohammed Ibrahim
4. Jalal Mubeenur Rahman
Petitioners 2 to 4 brought
on record as LRs of the
deceased sole petitioner
Viz., J.A.Rahman vide
Order dated 20.07.2021 in
C.M.P.No.10004 of 2020
in CRP.No.4179 of 2018 ... Petitioners
Vs.
Central Bank of India,
Rep by its Senior Manager,
Royapettah Branch,
No.220, Ground Floor,
Peters Road, Royapettah,
Chennai – 600 014. ... Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the
Tamilnadu Building (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1960, to set aside the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
order dated 03.09.2018 passed in R.C.A.No.55 of 2017, on the file of the
VIII Small Causes Court at Chennai, modifying the order dated
16.12.2016 passed in R.C.O.P.No.887 of 2015 on the file of the XII
Small Causes Court, Chennai, thereby enhancing the fair rent from
92,000/- to Rs.1,59,288/- as claimed.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.C.Nithysh Sekhar
C.R.P.(NPD).No.4267 of 2018
Central Bank of India,
Rep by its Senior Manager,
Now rep. by its Chief Manager,
Royapettah Branch,
No.220, Ground Floor,
Peters Road, Royapettah,
Chennai – 600 014. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. J.A.Rahman (died)
2. Jalal Tajunissa Begum
3. Jalal Mohammed Ibrahim
4. Jalal Mubeenur Rahman
Respondents 2 to 4 brought
on record as LRs of the
deceased sole respondent
Viz., J.A.Rahman vide
Order dated 20.07.2021 in
C.M.P.No.9792 of 2021
in CRP.No.4267 of 2018 ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the
Tamilnadu Building (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1960, to set aside the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
decree and judgment dated 03.09.2018 passed in R.C.A.No.55 of 2017,
on the file of the learned VII Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority)
Small Causes Court at Chennai and confirming the order dated
16.12.2016 passed in R.C.O.P.No.887 of 2015 on the file of the learned
XII Judge (Rent Controller), Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Nithysh Sekhar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar
COMMON ORDER
Both the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed as against the
decree and judgment dated 03.09.2018 passed by the learned VII Judge,
Small Causes Court at Chennai, (herein after called as “Rent Control
Appellate Authority”) in R.C.A.No.55 of 2017, thereby enhanced the fair
rent fixed by the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai,
(herein after called as “Rent Controller”) by an order dated 16.12.2016 in
R.C.O.P.No.887 of 2015, thereby fixing the fair rent for the petition
premises.
2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.4179 of 2018 has
been filed by the landlord for further enhancement of the fair rent fixed
by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The another Civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.4267 of 2018 has been filed by the tenant
challenging the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller and also
enhanced rent by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.
3. The case of the landlord is that he is the owner of the
petition premises and the tenant has been inducted as tenant in the
petition premises for the monthly rent of Rs.38,000/-. The purpose of the
tenancy is commercial and the petition premises is located in the prime
busy locality of the City of Chennai. The total extent of the premises is
1930 sq.ft of the built up area and also using the vacant space for the
purpose of parking vehicles. The market value of the land, in which
petition premises is situated at Rs.4 crores per ground and as such sought
for fixing the fair rent at Rs.1,44,606/-.
4. Resisting the same the tenant filed counter and stating that
the tenant is the bank and it came as a lessee in respect of the petition
premises under the lease agreement dated 13.03.2012. The period of
lease is five years, which expired on 28.02.2016. Therefore, fixing of fair
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
rent itself is premature and liable to be dismissed. As per the contention
of the lease agreement, further term of three years has been extended as
such the tenant is entitled to occupy for the same rent till February, 2019.
So far the tenant is paying rent at Rs.47,000/- and it is very reasonable
and remarkable amount for the petition premises. Therefore, prayed for
dismissed of the petition.
5. On the side of the landlord, he examined P.W.1 and marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On the side of the tenant, they examined R.W.1 and
marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. On perusal of the material produced on record
and considering both the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
respective parties and also the submissions made by the learned counsel
on either side, the learned Rent Controller fixed fair rent for the petition
premises at Rs.50,466/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord
filed appeal in R.C.A.No.55 of 2017 before the learned Rent Control
Appellate Authority for enhancement of rent. The learned Rent Control
Appellate Authority enhanced the fair rent at Rs.92,000/- per month for
the petition premises. Aggrieved by the same, both the landlord as well as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
the tenant filed the present Civil Revision Petitions for further
enhancement of fair rent and also challenging the fair rent fixed by the
Courts below.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the landlord submitted
that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to consider 15%
increased market value of the petition premises while fixing the fair rent.
The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has taken the land value at
Rs.3,00,000/- per ground, as per the Ex.P.3 which was of the year 2015.
When it being so, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to
have calculated the increased value by 15% per annum and then calculate
the fair rent. Therefore, he prayed for further enhancement of the fair rent
fixed by the Courts below.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant
vehemently contended that as per the lease agreement which was marked
as Ex.R.2 dated 13.03.2012, the lease period for the petition premises is
five years for the monthly rent of Rs.38,000/-. The lessee shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
desirous to continue the further period of three years with 25% of
enhanced rent. Accordingly, the tenant is paying monthly rent of
Rs.47,000/- for the petition premises. Further lessee shall be desirous to
continue the tenancy for further period of three years from the monthly of
March, 2019 with further enhancement of 25% viz., till 2022. Therefore,
the lease agreement period will expired only on 21.02.2022 and the
tenant is ready and willing to pay 25% enhanced amount from the March,
2019. Therefore, even before the expire of the lease agreement, the
landlord cannot ask for fixation of fair rent and according to the lease
agreement, the landlord can ask for only 25% of enhanced monthly rent
till February, 2022 and as such, the learned Rent Controller as well as the
learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ought not to have enhanced the
fair rent.
7.1. He further submitted that Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Building lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, defines that where the fair
rent of a building has not been fixed, the landlord shall not claim, receive
or stipulate for the payment of, any premium or other like sum in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
addition to the agreed rent. Admittedly, as per the lease agreement, the
landlord periodically increased the rent at 25% per three years once and
the tenant also is continuously paying the enhanced rent for the petition
premises.
7.2. He further submitted that the learned Rent Control Appellate
Authority blindly calculated the market value of the petition premises
based on the sale deed, which was marked as Ex.P.3. The said sale deed
relevant to only 60 sq.ft., of undivided land for the total sale
consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-, as such the learned Rent Controller
fixed a sum of Rs.3 crores per ground and enhanced value for the three
years 15% per annum. The property mentioned in the sale deed and the
petition premises are completely different and the same is situated at the
main road. That apart, the sale deed in respect of the undivided share in
the apartment floor, which is not applicable to the petition premises.
Therefore, he prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned Rent
Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
8. Heard Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the landlord and Mr.C.Nithysh Sekhar learned counsel appearing for the
tenant.
9. The landlord entered into an agreement for lease with the
tenant dated 13.03.2012 which was marked as Ex.R.2. Accordingly, the
tenant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.38,000/- as monthly rent for the
petition premises. The petition premises has plinth area of the 1930 sq.ft.,
and the same was leased out for commercial purpose. The tenant is the
bank and also having parking facilities in front of the petition premises.
10. Though a clause contained in the lease agreement, with
regard to the extension of lease period for the further term of three years
viz., till 2016 with enhanced rent at the rate of 25%, it doesn't mean that
the landlord prevented from asking for fixation of fair rent for the
petition premises. Further the tenancy has been extended from March,
2016 with 25% of enhanced and the tenant was paying a sum of
Rs.47,000/- as monthly rent for the petition premises. So after March
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
2016, the tenant is liable to pay rent with another 25% enhancement rent
till 2022. Admittedly, the tenant has not paid the enhanced rent from
March, 2019 onwards.
11. The learned Rent Controller fixed the value of the land for
the petition premises by considering the engineer report and the sale
deed which were marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 respectively. The property
mentioned in the Ex.P.3 is situated at old No.61/FF/4, new No.81/25.
Whereas the petition mentioned property situated at old door No.113,
new No.220, Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. Admittedly,
the property mentioned in the sale deed is undivided share to an extent of
60 sq.ft. Though the engineer valued the property at Rs.4,56,26,000/- per
ground, the learned Rent Controlled fixed the value of the property at
Rs.1,50,00,000/- per ground without any basis. Therefore, the learned
Rent Control Appellate Authority fixed the land value at
Rs.3,00,00,000/- per ground for the petition premises. The learned Rent
Control Appellate Authority had taken into account all the data in the
sale deed which was marked as Ex.P.3 and fixed the land value at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
Rs.3,00,00,000/- per ground. Since it is undivided share of 60 sq.ft., the
learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, though valued at
Rs.4,56,26,000/- fixed at Rs.3,00,00,000/- as land value of the petition
premises property.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the landlord submitted
that the Ex.P.3 is of the year 2012 and the petition was filed in the year
2015 as such the Court below ought to have add 15% increase value for
each year. As stated supra Ex.P.3 the sale deed with regard to the
undivided share as such 15% increasing value cannot be granted. Insofar
as the other valuation are concerned, no quarrel between the landlord and
the tenant. Therefore, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority
rightly enhanced the value of the land at Rs.3,00,00,000/- per ground and
fixed the fair rent at Rs.92,000/- per month. Further the tenant did not
prefer any appeal as against the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent
Controller. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the
order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and it
doesn't warrant any interference from this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
13. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
22.07.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
To
1. The VII Judge,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2. The XII 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.4179 & 4267 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.4179 & 4267 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.23393 of 2018
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
