Madras High Court
V.Sakthi Manohari vs Pushpa Devi (Died) on 1 June, 2023
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 13.06.2023
Pronounced on : 19.06.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
CRP.No.3182 of 2019 :
V.Sakthi Manohari .. Petitioner / Petitioner / Respondent
Vs
Tejraj Jain (Died)
1.Pushpa Devi (Died)
2.Pushpa Devi
3.Prakashchand Jain
4.R.Amit Kumar Jain
5.R.Gourav Kumar Jain
6.R.Vishal Kumar Jain .. Respondents / Appellants / Respondents
[1st respondent died. Respondents 2 to 6 who are already
on record are LRs of the deceased respondent-1 viz.,
Pushpa Devi as per the memo dated 01.06.2023 and
vide Court order dated 02.06.2023 made in
CRP.No.3182 of 2019 and CRP.No.2633/2022]
Prayer in CRP.No.3182 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section
25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 praying
to enhance the fair rent for the portion premises by modifying the order
passed in RCA.No.600 of 2015 dated 17.12.2018 on the file of the IX Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
of Small Causes at Chennai confirming the order dated 31.07.2015 passed
in RCOP.No.364 of 2006 on the file of XI Small Causes Court, Chennai.
CRP.No.2633 of 2022 :
Tejraj Jain (Deceased)
Pushpa Devi (Deceased)
1.Pushpa Devi
2.Prakashchand Jain
3.R.Amitkumar Jain
4.R.Gourav Kumar Jain
5.R.Vishal Kumar Jain
[Cause title accepted vide Court order dated 29.07.2022 made
in CMP.No.12321/2022 in CRP.SR.No.37736/2019]
Prayer in CRP.No.2633 of 2022: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section
25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of
1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 ad Act 1 of 1980, praying to set aside
the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018 passed by the learned IX Judge,
Rent Controller Appellate Authority, Small Causes Court, Chennai in
RCA.No.600 of 2015 and confirming the judgment and decree dated
31.07.2015 passed by the learned XI Judge, Rent Controller, Small Causes
Court, Chennai in RCOP.No.364/2006 and allow the CRP.
CRP.No.3182 of 2019 :
For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Rajesh
For Respondents : Mr.N.Gyanchand Jain
[R2 to R6]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
CRP.No.2633 of 2022 :
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Gyanchand Jain
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Rajesh
COMMON ORDER
These two revisions were filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, challenging the order passed by the
Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.600 of 2015 arising out of a
proceedings for fixation of fair rent in RCOP.No.364 of 2006 under Sec. 4 of
the Act. Parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
2.The respondents before the Rent Controller are the tenants of a building
which according to the landlady measures 615 sq.ft. It is located in a prime
locality of the city at Plot No.4904, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600
040. The original rent that was being paid at the time when the proceedings
for fixation of fair rent was instituted was Rs.4,620/- p.m. The landlady
laid RCOP.No.364/2006 claiming that the building in question will fetch a
fair rent of Rs.31,442/-. According to the landlady, the building has two
portions, and the one in the front was 17 years old and the one at the rear
was 25 years old when the petition was laid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
3. The tenants have filed their counter denying the entire allegation of the
landlady as regards the constructed area, the extent of the land (though
without providing what according to them was the correct information).
They pleaded that the age of the building was more than 28 years, and that
the land value of the property would be now more than Rs.28.0 lakhs per
ground, or about Rs.1,166/- per sq.ft.,
4.1 The dispute was taken up for trial by the Tribunal, before which both
sides have examined their engineers as P.W.2 and R.W.1, through whom
they have produced Ext.P2, Engineer's Report and Ext.R1, report. For
determining the land value while P.W.2 has relied on Ext.P3 sale deed dated
22.11.2004, R.W.1 had relied on Ext.R3, sale deed dated 01.07.2005.
4.2. After considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal fixed the monthly
fair rent at Rs.20,532/-. The salient features of the Order of the Tribunal
are:
● There is unanimity between the two engineers examined on either side
regarding the type of the building, which is the subject matter of the
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
● So far as the extent occupied by the building is concerned, while
P.W.2 fixed it at 615 sq.ft., as claimed in the petition, the Rent
Controller accepted the evidence of R.W.1, who fixed it at 590.60
sq.ft., and took exception to the fact that the landlady had not
produced the title documents to ascertain the extent of the constructed
area. In other words, the Tribunal accepted the extent of the building
based on the evidence of the tenants.
● Regarding the age of the building, while P.W.2 fixed the age of the
building as was pleaded by the landlady, the Tribunal fixed the age at
30 years as contended by the tenants.
● Turning to the costs of construction, the Tribunal rejected the
evidence of P.W.2 who added 25% to the PWD rate of Rs.374/-, but
instead fixed the cost of the construction at Rs.374/- itself.
● Turing to amenities, while P.W.2 fixed it at 5%, R.W.1 would assert it
as 2%, but the Tribunal has fixed it at 3%.
● So far as the total extent of open space is concerned, while the
petitioner claims it to be 146 sq.ft., the Tribunal determined it at 119
sq.ft., and fixed the total extent at 414.30 sq.ft.
● So far as the all critical land value is concerned, the Tribunal opted to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
rely on Ext.P3 sale deed, which P.W.2 has relied on, over Ext.R3 sale
deed which R.W.1 has relied on. Accordingly, the Tribunal preferred
to accept the land value of Rs.4,410/- per sq.ft., in terms of Ext.P3
over Rs. 1,166.60 as per Ext.R3. To this value, the Tribunal had
added 10% annual appreciation for two years, and fixed the land
value at Rs.4,840/- per sq.ft., After due calculation, it determined the
fair rent payable at Rs.20,532/-.
To sum it up, except the land value and the type of construction (as regards
which there is agreement between the parties), on all other aspects the Rent
Controller has accepted the contentions of the tenants.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the respondents/tenants
approached the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal with RCA.No.600 of 2015.
And before the Appellate authority, the tenants achieved an insignificant
modification of the order of tribunal, when the appellate tribunal reduced the
fair rent of Rs.20,532/- as fixed by the Rent Controller to Rs.20,525/-. This
is now under challenge.
6.Challenging the same, both sides have preferred separate revisions. While
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
the landlady had preferred CRP.No.3182 of 2019, the tenants had preferred
CRP.No.2633 of 2022.
7. The learned counsel for the landlady, the petitioner in CRP.No.3182 of
2019 would submit that he would rest content with the order of the appellate
Tribunal. This implies he is not pressing CRP.No.3182 of 2019.
8. Opening the arguments for the tenants in CRP.No.2633 of 2022, the
learned counsel submitted that the Tribunals below have almost
mechanically adopted the valuation given in Ext.P3, and did not give any
reason as to why it rejected Ext.R3. In this regard, the Tribunals have
omitted to consider the socio-economic circumstances affecting the land
valuation, and should have suitably reduced the land value to make it just
and equitable for the tenants. Secondly, the Tribunal without any basis has
granted 10% annual appreciation in the land value for two consecutive years
that it determined it based on Ext.P3, which included the year of its
purchase, and this is plainly impermissible in law. Reliance was placed on
the authorities in Greaves Ltd., Vs. V.S.Raghavan and another [2007 (3)
CTC 262] and Central Bank of India and another Vs. A.Kotteswaran and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
another [2007-1-L.W.700].
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlady submitted that while the
property covered under Ext.P3 sale deed dated 22.11.2004 is situated barely
some 150 sq.ft. from the building of the landlady, the property covered
under ExtR3 is located about 1½ km., away from it.
10.1 This Court carefully weighed the rival submissions. The only point in
dispute is the value of the land which is a major component that affects the
determination of the fair rent under Section 4 of the Act. If the entire order
of the Tribunals are scrutinised, except the land value, on all the other
components, the Tribunals have essentially sailed with the tenants and not
with the landlady. This would imply that contrary to the contention of the
tenants, the tribunals indeed have applied their mind to the facts before it.
10.2 Turning to the land value, the property covered under Ext.P3, sale deed
covers 2 grounds and 800 sq.ft. or in other words 5,600 sq.ft., which was
transacted for the sale consideration of Rs.2.47 crores (it works out to
Rs.4,410/- per sq.ft.). While the subject matter of property is situated in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
Plot No.4904 in II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040, the property
covered under Ext.P3 is in Plot No.4674 in the same road. So far as the
property covered under Ext.R3 is concerned, it covers an extent of 2,800
sq.ft., but it is not located in II Avenue, Anna Nagar, but in the 4th Street in
Plot No.3083, Anna Nagar. It is not in dispute that II Avenue, where the
building in question is, is a 100 ft. road, and that it has now become a busy
commercial area though it is classified as residential-cum-commercial area.
Indeed, even the subject matter of the present petition itself comprises of
both residential and non-residential portion. Therefore, the property covered
under Ext.R3 cannot be equated or matched with the property covered under
Ext.P3.
11. Somewhere in the course of his arguments, the counsel for the tenants
argued that the property covered under Ext.P3 was purchased by a leading
business house in the city, and they, for certain reasons have jacked up the
price manifolds than the market price. The statement though was made,
was not backed up by any evidence to support it. Therefore, this Court does
not find anything wrong in the Tribunal relying on Ext.P3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
12. The only aspect is whether the Tribunals were justified in giving an
annual appreciation of 10% over the land value as determined in terms of
Ext.P3. In terms of Ext.P3, the value of the site is Rs.4,410/- per sq.ft. This
is as on November 2004. The Tribunal had granted an annual increase of
10% for two years and fixed the land value at Rs.4,840/-, and difference is
Rs.430/- per sq.ft.
13. The petition for fixation of fair rent was filed in 2006. Today, it is in its
17th year of its institution. And, today, the present market value will have no
relevance to something that is being debated and decided now. Therefore,
this court considers the argument challenging the decision of the Tribunals
to increase the market value of the property by 10% annually may have to be
appreciated in the context of socio-economic consideration as affecting the
property, and the loss the landlady might be suffering over the last 17 years.
In this regard, this Court found that the tenants were not seen to be
enthusiastic even to deposit the differential arrears of rent even in terms of
their calculation. This court also needs to weigh where fairness lies.
14. In conclusion, this court does not find any merit in C.R.P.2633 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
and the same is liable to be dismissed. In fine, CRP.No.3182 of 2019 is
dismissed as not pressed and CRP.No.2633 of 2022 is dismissed with costs
and the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in its order in
RCA No.600 of 2015 is upheld.
19.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
ds
To:
1.The IX Judge
Rent Controller Appellate Authority
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The XI Judge
Rent Controller,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
3.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
Pre-delivery order in
C.R.P.Nos.3182 of 2019 & CRP.No.2633 of 2022
19.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
