Madras High Court

V.K.Vijayakumar vs N.A.Jayaraj on 26 October, 2022

                                                                              C.R.P.No.1371 of 2022

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                              DATED: 26.10.2022
                                                   CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
                                             C.R.P.No.1371 of 2022
                                           and C.M.P.No.7204 of 2022

                V.K.Pattammal (Died)
                V.K.Murthy (Died)

                1. V.K.Vijayakumar
                2. V.K.Kanchana
                3. Maragathaselvi
                4. Padmapriya                                           .. Petitioners

                                                Vs.
                N.A.Sivaraj (Died)
                1. N.A.Jayaraj
                2. N.A.Nagaraj
                3. N.A.Sundarraj
                4. N.A.Vijayaraj
                5. A.Mohana Ammal @ Mohanasundari
                6. S.Andal
                7. S.Murugan
                8. S.Saravanan                                          .. Respondents


                PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
                Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 pleased to set aside the judgment
                and decree dated 20.01.2020 made in RCA.No.10 of 2013 on the file of Rent
                Control Appellate Authority, Sub Court, Vellore, confirming the judgment and
                decree dated 22.07.2013 made in RCOP.No.60 of 2004 on the file of Rent
                Controller, Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                ________
                Page 1 of 8
                                                                                    C.R.P.No.1371 of 2022




                                        For Petitioners    : Mr.B.Manoharan

                                        For Respondents : Mr.S.Muthukumar (R1 to R4)
                                                          No appearance (R5 to R8)



                                                     ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is arising out of fair rent proceedings.

The petitioners filed RCOP.No.60 of 2004 seeking fixation of fair rent at the

rate of Rs.15,000/- per month in respect of the portions marked as “A” and “C”

in the demised building.

2.According to petitioners the building bearing Door Nos.82 and 83,

Long Bazaar Street, Vellore Town, Vellore District, was let out to the

respondent for running a hotel. The agreed rent on the date of filing a Fair Rent

Petition was Rs.4000/- per month. The petitioners sought for fixation of fair

rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month.

3. The respondent filed a counter stating that he was in occupation of

entire building bearing Door Nos. 82 and 83. It was further stated that

respondent was the owner of portion of the building and the remaining portions

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

C.R.P.No.1371 of 2022

were owned by the petitioners and one Venkatesa Mudaliar. In the counter the

respondent specifically raised an objection that the description of the property

in the Schedule to Fair Rent Petition was very vague and no specific and

correct measurements of the property was given by the revision petitioners.

4. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that

the petition filed by the revision petitioners seeking fixation of fair rent for “A”

and “C” portion of the demised building was not maintainable. It was held by

Rent Controller that in the absence of other co-owners of the property who are

necessary parties to the petition, the petition filed by the revision petitioners

was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed an

appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.10 of 2013.

The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and

dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners are before

this Court.

5. Heard the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the respondents and perused the typed set of papers.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the partition https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

C.R.P.No.1371 of 2022

suit between the parties in O.S.No.122 of 1960 on the file of Sub Court,

Vellore, portion “A” and “C” of the demised property was allotted to the

petitioners and hence, the petitioners filed instant application for fixation of fair

rent in respect of the portion allotted to them.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first

petitioner herein namely V.K.Vijiayakumar was examined as P.W.1, he

admitted in his evidence that the demised building was originally belong to

Ramakrishna Mudaliar and his two sons Kesava Mudaliar and Venkatesa

Mudaliar and portion “A” and “C” of demised building was allotted to the share

of Ramakrishna Mudaliar and Kesava Mudaliar. The petitioners who are

claiming under Kesava Mudaliar had not impleaded the other sharers of the

property in the Fair Rent Petition. Therefore, the Court below rightly concluded

that in the absence of impleadment of other co-owners, the revision petitioners

are not entitled to maintain a petition for fixation of fair rent.Under Section 4 of

Tamil Nadu Building Rent Control Act either the land lord or tenant is entitled

to file an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. The

fixation of fair rent is for the building, in the case on hand, the petitioners

herein sought for fixation of fair rent for a portion of building without

impleading the other co-owners of the property. It is the case of the revision https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

C.R.P.No.1371 of 2022

petitioners that portion “A” and “C” of the demised building was allotted to

them in the partition suit. The admission of P.W.1 in this regard assumes

significance. P.W.1 in his evidence admitted that portion “A” and “C” were

allotted to the share of Ramakrishna Mudaliar and Kesava Mudaliar. The said

Ramakrishna Mudaliar had passed away and his heirs are in joint possession. It

was also admitted that the petitoners' mother V.K.Pattammal also entitled to a

share in portion “A” and “C” of demised building. He also specifically made

an admission that he failed to implead co-sharers of the building, the vernacular

portion of the said admission is extracted below;

"A and C khh;f; ,lg;gl;l brhj;Jf;fs; uhkfpU&;z KjypahUf;Fk; nfrtd; KjypahUf;Fk; xJf;fg;gl;lJ/ uhkfpU&;z Kjypahh; ,we;Jtpl;lhh; mtuJ thhpRfSf;F Tl;lhf jhd; ,Uf;fpwJ/ jhth tiuglj;jpy; V kw;Wk; rp vd;W Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s gFjpfspy; ghjp ghfk; vd;Dila jhahh; gl;lk;khSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ/ kw;w ghf!;jh;fis ,t;tHf;fpy; jug;g[pdh;fs; nrh;f;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/"

8. In view of the specific admission made by the revision petitioner as

P.W.1, it is clear that the petitioners failed to implead all the co-owners of the

demised building. The fair rent can be fixed only for the building and it cannot

be fixed without impleading all the co-owners of the building.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________

C.R.P.No.1371 of 2022

9. The fair rent has to be fixed by taking into consideration the total

extent of the property, basic amenities provided etc., The same cannot be done

without impleading the other co-owners. Consequently, the Court below are

justified in dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioners for fixation

of fair rent on the ground that the petition cannot be entertained without

impleadment of all the co-owners of the building.