Madras High Court
M/S.Punjab National Bank vs Taheri K.Dhanaliwala (Died) on 25 August, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
and C.M.P.Nos.9759, 9760, 9796 & 9798 of 2020
M/s.Punjab National Bank
Ground floor, No.321/156
Linghi Chetty street
Chennai-600 001. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Taheri K.Dhanaliwala (died)
2.Sabbir K.Dhanaliwala
3.Huzefa S. Dhanaliwala
Represented by her Power Agent
Sabbir K.Dhanaliwala
4.Rashida A.Vagh
3-B Post Office Road
Krishnaswami Nagar
Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 045.
(Represented by her Power Agent
Sabbir K.Dhanaliwala)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
5.Muneera Ghosh
Represented by her Power Agent
Sabbir K.Dhanaliwala
6. Fatema Taheri Dhanaliwala
7.Rashida A.Vagh
D/o.Late Taheri K.Dhanaliwala ... Respondents
(1st respondent viz., Taheri K.Dhanaliwala
died and the respondents 6 & 7 brought on
record as the legal heirs of the deceased 1st
respondent vide order of this Court dated
23.08.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.5182 & 5185
of 2022 in C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020)
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section
25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960
as amended by the Act 23 of 1973 against the judgment and decree dated
11.12.2019 in R.C.A.Nos.391 & 304 of 2017 on the file of the VII Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the order and decree dated
28.03.2017 passed in R.C.O.P.No.663 of 2015 on the file of the XVI
Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
In both the CRPS
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Martin D.Tharakan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
For RR2 to 5 : Ms.Rukmani
for Mr.K.Shivakumar
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner Bank before me is the tenant. The revisions have
been filed against a common judgment passed in R.C.A.Nos.391 & 304
of 2017 dated 11.12.2019. The two RCAs' arose against the order passed
in R.C.O.P.No.663 of 2015 dated 28.03.2017.
2. There is no dispute between the jural relationship of the
landlords and the tenant. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondents
are the landlords. They entered into a lease agreement on 21.09.2007. As
per the lease agreement, the period of tenancy was from 01.04.2005 to
31.03.2010. The extent given in the schedule was 3270.69 sq.ft. as the
area under occupation of the petitioner.
3. After the expiry of the lease, the landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.663
of 2015 for fixation of fair rent. In the said petition, they had made a
claim that they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,61,091/- towards fair rent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
4. This was stoutly resisted by the tenant Bank stating that the
extent under occupation is only 3270.69 sq.ft., but the claim that had
been made in the R.C.O.P. was for an extent of 3771.56 sq.ft. Apart from
that, they stated that the premises does not possess the parking area and it
is having only one entrance that too on the ground floor. It was also
pleaded that the area in which the building is situated is a very narrow
one, there is no land appurtenant and the entire area is congested. The
age of the building was denied as 60 years old and it was pleaded, it is 80
years old. In fine, they had resisted each and every one of the points of
the landlords and had stated that the commercial rate in the area cannot
be taken, since the petitioner is in occupation of only the ground floor.
5. On the side of the landlords, one Expert Engineer Mr.Aeez
Mohideen was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the
side of the tenant Bank, two witnesses were examined namely, R.W.1
and R.W.2 and the documents under Exs.R1 to R5 were filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
6. After considering the arguments of either side as well as the
evidence that had been tendered, the fair rent was fixed at Rs.1,00,465/-
by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, R.C.A.No.304 of 2017
was preferred by the civil revision petitioner/tenant Bank and
R.C.A.No.391 of 2017 was preferred by the landlords/respondents
herein.
7. The landlords sought for enhancement of fair rent in their appeal
and the tenants wanted to reduce the fair rent fixed by the Rent
Controller. R.C.A.No.304 of 2017 preferred by the tenant was dismissed,
whereas R.C.A.No.391 of 2017 filed by the landlords was allowed
enhancing the fair rent from Rs.1,00,465/- to Rs.1,60,183/-.
8. Against these findings, C.R.P.(NPD)No.1615 of 2020 has been
preferred against R.C.A.No.391 of 2017 and C.R.P.(NPD)No.1618 of
2020 has been preferred against R.C.A.No.304 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
9. Heard Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Mr.Martin D. Tharakan, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms.Rukmani, the learned counsel representing
Mr.K.Shivakumar, the learned counsel for the respondents. I have
carefully perused the entire records.
10. Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, would putforth two arguments,
one was that the parties had agreed that the lease area is only 3270.69
sq.ft. and the fixation of fair rent for 3771.56 sq.ft. is erroneous and
contrary to the lease deed. The second submission was that there are no
schedule-I amenities available in the premises and therefore, both the
Courts below had erred in fixing the fair rent.
11. Ms.Rukmani, would argue that both the submissions are
erroneous. In so far as the lease deed is concerned, what was leased
under the document dated 21.09.2007 is only the carpet area and not the
entire area under the occupation of the tenant. On the second submission
of the petitioner Bank, she would state that R.W.1 and R.W.2 had entered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
the witness box and had admitted that all the three basic amenities viz.,
water, electricity and sewerage, are available in the premises. Therefore,
both the grounds raised by the petitioner do not survive for
consideration.
12. I have gone through the lease deed dated 21.09.2007. As
rightly pointed out by Ms.Rukmani, the premises under occupation is the
ground floor, but the extent is specifically mentioned as “carpet area”.
The fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act is not confined only to the carpet area, but
for the entire portion under the occupation of the tenant including the
land appurtenant, if any. Before the Rent Controller, P.W.1 has entered
the witness box and has filed a report stating that the area under
occupation is 3771.56 sq.ft. There is a difference between the area under
the actual occupation and the area given as carpet area. The Rent
Controller, as already pointed out, is concerned with the entire area and
not merely the area leased out as “Carpet area”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
13. In so far as the valuation of the land is concerned, the Rent
Controller has relied upon Ex.P3, which is a sale deed dated 18.11.2014.
It is one year prior to the filing of the R.C.O.P. under the Act 18 of 1960
as amended by the Act 23 of 1973. The Rent Controller only looks at the
value of the property on the basis of the same principles as would be
applied under the Land Acquisition Act. That is to say, to arrive at the
value of the land under Section 4 of the Act 18 of 1960, the same
principles, which are applied under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition
Act 1 of 1894 have to be followed. Unfortunately, the tenant has not filed
any document in order to arrive at the value of the land. Unless and until
a contra document was available before the Court, the Court did not have
any other option than to proceed on the basis of Ex.P3 and the analysis
report under Ex.P4. Therefore, I cannot find any mistake on the part of
the Courts below in adopting Ex.P3 for fixation of value of the land.
14. In so far as the basic amenities are concerned, both the Courts
below have concurrently found that R.W.1 and R.W.2 have in fact
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
conceded to the statement that the building possess all the basic and
schedule-I amenities. Therefore, sitting under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, I am not in a
position to re-appreciate the evidence. In the upshot of the discussion,
both the Civil Revision Petitions deserve only the order of dismissal and
accordingly, they are dismissed.
15. At this stage, Mr. M.Aravind Subramaniam, would submit that
a sum of Rs.14,47,988.25 has been deposited by the petitioner Bank
pursuant to the interim order of this Court. The respondents/landlords are
entitled to withdraw the said amount on filing an appropriate application
before this Court.
16. Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, would also submit that pending
the litigation, the fair rent that had been fixed by the Rent Controller has
been paid from 16.09.2020. The Bank would be answerable only for the
difference of the amount that had already been paid as against the
amount, which has been confirmed by me today.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
17. With the above observations, both the Civil Revision Petitions
are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
25.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
To
1.XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Kj
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1615 & 1618 of 2020
and C.M.P.Nos.9759, 9760, 9796 & 9798 of 2020
25.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
