Madras High Court
J.Sukumar vs Salim Mohideen on 28 June, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
J.Sukumar ..Petitioner
Vs.
E.Mohideen Kutty(deceased)
1.Salim Mohideen ..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside the order and
decretal order dated 14.11.2017 passed in RCA.No.169 of 2013 on the
file of the VII Judge Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order
and decretal order dated 26.03.2013 passed in RCOP.No.656 of 2009
on the file of X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow the civil
revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajasekar
for Mr.V.V.Sairam
For Respondent : no appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order and
decretal order dated 14.11.2017 passed in RCA.No.169 of 2013 on the
file of the VII Judge Small Causes Court, Chennai, thereby modifying
the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the learned Rent Controller in
RCOP.No.656 of 2009 and thereby fixing fair rent for the petition
premises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the
landlord. The landlord filed petition for fixation of fair rent for the
petition premises. The case of the landlord is that he is the landlord of
the premises situated at door No.339, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam,
Chennai-24 and the tenant was inducted in respect of shop No.4 in the
said premises for the monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- for tenancy. The
petition premises consists of ground floor and Mezzanine floor. The
plinth area of the ground floor is 255 sq.ft. and that of the Mezzanine
floor is 255 sq.ft. The petition premises is provided with common toilet
and basic amenities and the building is aged about 40 years. The
petition premises is situated in busy commercial locality near banks
and commercial establishments. Therefore, the landlord filed petition
for fixation of fair rent before the learned Rent controller.
3. Resisting the same, the tenant filed counter stating that
the landlord is not the owner of the petition premises, or his father
during his life time. The petition premises does not consist of toilet
facility and water connection. The petition premises is aged about
more than 60 years and the monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- is correct and
the tenant is paying the rent regularly without fail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
4. In support of the landlord's case, PW1 and PW2 were
examined and four documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On the
side of the tenant, RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were
marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidences adduced
by the respective parties and the submission made by the learned
counsel, the learned Rent Controller fixed fair rent for the petition
premises at Rs.12,850/- per month payable by the tenant. Aggrieved
by the same, the tenant preferred appeal before the learned Rent
Control Appellate Authority and the same was modified by the learned
Rent Control Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Civil Revision Petition is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when
the tenant has taken specific stand that the landlord is not the owner
of the petition premises, or his father during his life time, the landlord
has no locus to file petition for fixing of fair rent. Both the courts below
failed to consider this ground and fixed fair rent. In respect of fair rent
is concerned, it is very high and liable to be reduced. He further
submitted that the plinth area of the petition premises was taken as
267.35 sq.ft. and fixes common toilet area as 240.3 sq.ft. Whereas the
tenant occupied only a small shop. Therefore, he sought for setting
aside the fair rent fixed by the court below.
6. Heard, Mr.M.Rajasekar, the learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
petitioner. Though notice was served, no one appeared on behalf of
the respondent before this Court in person or through pleader.
7. The tenant categorically admitted that monthly rent for the
petition premises at Rs.1,500/- and it is situated at door No.339, Arcot
Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24. The tenant no where stated that
the landlord is not collecting rent and did not even whisper about the
owner of the premises. The respondent also failed to let in evidence to
substantiate the said contention. On perusal of the evidence of PW1,
he deposed that his father entered into an agreement for lease with
the tenant. He possessed agreement for lease entered between his
father and the tenant. There was not even any suggestion put up by
the tenant in respect of the ownership of the petition premises.
8. In support of his contention with regard to denial of title,
the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the
case of East India Corporation Ltd Vs. Shree meenakshi Mills
Ltd reported in (1991) 3 SCC 230, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India held as follows:
What is stated in the second proviso to section
10(1) is the sole circumstance in which the civil court is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
invested with jurisdiction in matters of evictions. But this
jurisdiction cannot be invoked otherwise than as
stipulated in the second proviso. This means that the
condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a
civil court is that the tenant should have denied the title
of the landlord or claimed right of permanent tenancy and
the Controller should, on such denial or claim by the
tenant, reach a decision whether such denial or claim is
bona fide. Upon such decision, the Controller must record
a finding to that effect. In that event, the landlord is
entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court.
Where these conditions are satisfied, the civil court will
have jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction on any of
the grounds mentioned, in section 10 or Sections 14 to
16, notwithstanding that the Court has found that the
tenant's denial of the landlord's title does not involve
forfeiture of the lease, or, his claim of right of permanent
tenancy is unfounded. Except to this limited extent, the
jurisdiction of the civil court in matters of eviction of a
tenant is completely barred and the jurisdiction in such
matters is vested in the tribunals set up under the
statute.
9. In the case on hand, the tenant just denied the ownership
of the petition premises. Whereas, the tenant failed to state as to who
is the owner of the building premises and not even put any suggestion
while cross examining PW1 in this regard. That apart, the tenant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
categorically admitted that the rent for the petition premises is
Rs.1,500/- per month. Therefore, the above judgment cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to the case on hand.
10. Insofar as fixation of fair rent is concerned, the petition
premises is type A-1 building and aged about 55 years. Both the
engineers submitted their report and stated that the petition premises
has all amenities and fixed 18% towards basic amenities for the
petition premises. The plinth area of the petition premises is 235 sq.ft
and the plinth area of the Mezzanine floor is 225 sq.ft. with common
toilet area is 240.3 sq.ft. Insofar as market value of the petition
premises is concerned, as per Ex.P4, the value for the property in
Ex.P3 is at Rs.79,08,000/- in the year 2007. Accordingly, the court
below, with appreciation of 20%, fixed market value of the premises at
Rs.96,00,000/- per ground. After depreciation and as per basic
amenities provided to the petition premises, the building value fixed at
Rs.1,43,501/-. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller fixed fair rent
at Rs.12,850/-. The petition premises is located in the commercial
area and heart of the city. Therefore, the fair rent fixed by the learned
Rent Controller is quite reasonable and the learned Rent Control
Appellate Authority slightly modified the same. Therefore, this Court
finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
11. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
28.06.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
1.The VII Judge,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai
2.The X Judge,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai
CRP.NPD.No.2351 of 2018
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
