Mahendar Jain vs Bhargavi
2023 Latest Caselaw 4443 Mad

                                                                                      C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                          Dated : 19.04.2023

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                                    C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021


                     Mahendar Jain                                             ... Petitioner

                                                                 Vs.

                     Bhargavi                                                  ... Respondent


                                  Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25(1) of Tamilnadu

                     Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1973 to set aside the Judgment and

                     Decree dated 19.01.2021 in R.C.A.No.472 of 2017 on the file of learned IX

                     Judge, Small Causes Court, Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act,

                     Chennai in confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 06.04.2017 in

                     R.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2015 on the file of XV Judge, Small Causes Court.



                                         For Petitioner     : Mr.B.Manivannan

                                         For Respondent : Mr.M.Kempraj




                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

                                                             ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the

Judgment and Decree dated 19.01.2021 in R.C.A.No.472 of 2017 on the

file of learned IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in confirming the fair

and decreetal order dated 06.04.2017 in R.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2015 on the

file of learned XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord and

the respondent/landlord has filed R.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2015 to fix the fair

rent of Rs.20,961/- for the front side portion of the respondent-premises at

Door No.61, Jermiah Road Vepery, Chennai – 7. A counter was filed by the

petitioner / tenant to fix the present rent of Rs.3,500/-. The court below

upon considering submissions as well as engineers' report allowed the

petition by fixing the fair rent for the petition premises at Rs.11,782/- from

the date of petition, i.e., 09.10.2015. Aggrieved against the same, the

petitioner preferred R.C.A.No.472 of 2017 to fix the fair rent of Rs.3,500/-.

The appellate court upon considering the documents placed on record

dismissed the petition and confirmed order passed by the court below. As

against the same, the petitioner / tenant has filed the present Revision.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Rent

Controller and the Appellate Authority ought to have seen that even the

respondent/ landlord's engineer (P.W.1) had given the plinth area of

petition premises as 328.38 sq.ft., and in the petition also the landlord

pleaded the plinth area as only 317 Sq.ft., however, both the courts below

erred in fixing the plinth area as 465 sq.ft., relying upon Ex.R.1, the release

deed in favour of respondent / landlord.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submit that the petition

premises is situated in a service road adjoining vepery bridge and

therefore, the road width in front of the petition premises is less than 20

feet, hence the property in such narrow stretch will not command any

significant market value. Further, the entire property in the name of the

respondent is only 465 Sq.ft., and therefore, no development could be

carried out in such a small property and such property will not fetch higher

market value, therefore, fixing of Rs. 1.5 Crores per ground is excessive

and without any supporting evidence, thereby pleaded to allow the present

petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

5. Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the petition premises is more than fifty years old and

constructed with lime mortar and roofing is madras terrace and not RCC.

When the portion was let out for rent to the respondent, there was only

wooden door and the respondent, at his expenses, erected the rolling

shutter and laid ceramic tiles. Further, there is no basic amenities and the

service road in front of the petition premises is only 12 sq.ft., wide and the

entire stretch is 'no parking zone' and even for unloading business articles,

the goods carrier could not be parked. Hence pleaded that based on the

prevailing market value of the land and age and nature of construction of

the building, the present rent of Rs.3,500/- itself is the fair rent for petition

premises and hence prayed for dismissal.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

documents placed on record.

7. On going through the documents placed on record, it is seen that

the petition premises is situated at Vepery, jermiah Road, Chennai. Initially,

the petitioner / tenant was put in tenancy for commercial occupation by the

mother of the respondent / landlady in the year 2002 and at that time, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

rent was fixed as Rs.2,000/ per month and amenities at Rs.1,500/ totaling a

sum Rs.3,500/- The mother of the respondent / landlady subsequently

released the property in favour of the present respondent / landlady and

also died, then, the respondent / landlady became the absolute owner of

the property. Besides the above, from the date of tenancy, to till date, the

petitioner / tenant is paying rent at Rs.2,000/ per month and amenities at

Rs.1,500/, totalling a sum of Rs.3,500/, without any enhancement in the

rent or amenity charges, that too for the past 16 years. Hence the

respondent / landlady filed the R.C.O.P. to fix the fair rent at a sum of

Rs.20,961/- per month. The petitioner / tenant filed a detailed counter in the

R.C.O.P. stating that Rs.3,500/ is the fair rent to the petition premises and

prayed for dismissal of the R.C.O.P.

8. It is pertinent to point out that the Civil Engineers appointed on

behalf of either sides were examined as witness before the court below and

filed their valuation reports along with the documents. The learned Rent

Controller, considering the submissions of the said witnesses on both

sides and the exhibits, had fixed a sum of Rs.11,782/, as fair rent for the

petition premises. Not being satisfied by the same, an appeal was filed

before Rent Control Appellate Authority by the petitioner / tenant on two

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

grounds :- (i) That the rent controller erroneously fixed the plinth area

294.32 sq.ft instead of 465 sq.ft and (ii) The rent controller fixed the land

value without any supportive evidence and rent controller fixed the higher

market value of the land. The Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority

after considering all the facts and evidences, dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the fair rent for the petition premises of Rs.11,782/- per

month,as arrived by the court below. Seeking to set aside the same, the

petitioner has come up with this petition.

9. Besides the above, it is to be noted that the report submitted by

both the engineers, viz., on behalf of the respondent and the petitioner,

states that the superstructure was constructed with brick work in cement

mortar, Madras terrace roofing, ceramic flooring, rolling shutter and cement

plastered walls in the ground floor and opined that the type of building as

Type 1 construction. Accedeing to the said engineers' report, the Appellate

Authority has classified the building as Type 1 Construction. Further, the

engineer appointed on behalf of the petitioner has ascertained the age of

the building as 30 years and the engineer on behalf of the respondent has

ascertained the age of the building as 45 years. However, both the

engineers have not taken scientific test on the building. The court below

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

decided the age of the building as 45 years, based on the Ex R.1,

Release Deed.

10. Moreover, the engineer appointed on behalf of the petitioner has

awarded 7.5% towards basic amenities, whereas, the engineer on behalf of

the Respondent awarded 5% towards basic amenities. Since only the

electricity was available, Appellate Authority had awarded 7.5% towards

the basic amenities. Further, the age of the building was decided as 45

years and depreciation is given as 0.636 (1%per year). The petitioner's

Engineer, P.W.1 has calculated the built up area of the ground floor as

328.32 Sq.ft., whereas, the respondent Engineer, R.W.2, calculated the

plinth area of ground floor as 294.32 Sq.ft.

11. As far as the land value is concerned, according to the engineer

of the petitioner, the market value of land was stated as Rs.2,73,60,000/-

per ground by reling upon the sale deed Ex P.4 executed in the year 2016

and analysis report Ex P2. The engineer of the respondent has stated the

value of land as Rs 50,00,000/- and has filed the sale deed and analysis

report of the property situated in Door No.71, Old Door No. 33, previous

door No 518, Maddox Street, Vepery, Chennai- 7, which is away from the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

petition premises. Further, the Respondent has calculated the land value

based upon the UDS share of 300 Sq ft, as per Ex R4, Sale deed

registered in 2012. After considering the report of both the Engineers, the

locational advantages around the petition premises and escalation of land

value, the court below has fixed the market value of the petition premises

as Rs.1,50,00,000/- per ground.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking

note of the fact that the court below has rightly considered the release deed

dated 08.05.2009, which was released by the mother of the respondent /

landlady in favour of the respondent / landlady, engineers report, location

of the petition premises, age of the building, depreciation, market value,

basic amenities and type of contruction and fixed the fair rent and taking

note of the fact that right from the year 2002, the rent has not been

increased that too for the property, which is located in the prime location

and the fair rent fixed by the court below, as Rs.11,782/-, is very normal

price and the amount being paid by the petitioner / tenant as Rs.3,500/- is

very meagre, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the order

dated 19.01.2021 in R.C.A.No.472 of 2017 on the file of learned IX Judge,

Small Causes Court, Chennai in confirming the fair and decreetal order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

dated 06.04.2017 in R.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2015 on the file of XV Judge,

Small Causes Court, Chennai, is perfectly valid and does not require any

interference by this Court. Further, the respondent / landlord has submitted

a statement of rental dues payable to the tune of Rs.8,46,960/- by the

petitioner / tenant after deduction of the rent paid at the rate of Rs.11,782/-

per month.

In view of the above, the present Civil Revison Petition is dismissed

and the arrears of rent shall be paid by the petitioner without any further

delay, i.e., on or before 31.05.2023. No costs.

19.04.2023

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking /Non-Speaking Order ssd

To

1. The IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai

2. The XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,

ssd

C.R.P.No.1725 of 2021

19.04.2023

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