Madras High Court
R.Chandrasekar vs P.T.Sambandham on 2 June, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.1198 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.1198 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5778 of 2023
R.Chandrasekar .. Petitioner
Versus
P.T.Sambandham .. Respondent
Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and
Rent Control] Act, 1960, against the judgment and decreetal order dated 27.04.2022,
passed in R.C.A.No.4 of 2020, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,
Tiruchirappalli, confirming the order dated 24.07.2020, passed in R.C.O.P.No.126 of
2015, on the file of the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson
ORDER
The petitioner is the tenant, who suffered an adverse judgment and decree of
the Rent Control Court in R.C.O.P.No.126 of 2015, on 24.07.2020. The said
R.C.O.P. was filed by the respondent/landlord for fixation of fair rent under Section 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1198 of 2023
of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Court in
R.C.A.No.4 of 2020, which was also dismissed on 27.04.2022. Challenging the
same, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
2.The specific case of the petitioner is that he had taken the property from the
previous owner namely, Kursheeth Begum in the year 2000 and had paid a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- to her towards sale consideration, but was unaware of the subsequent
sale to be respondent. In fact, the petitioner, who was also attempting to negotiate
with the previous owner Kursheeth Begum was unaware of the fact that the said
Kursheeth Begum had sold the land to the respondent on 10.07.2009.
3.It is submitted that the petitioner was paying a monthly rent of Rs.1,700/-,
which has been increased manifold times to Rs.29,700/-, vide the order of the Rent
Controller in R.C.O.P.No.126 of 2015. It is submitted that while calculating the fair
rent, the Valuer appointed by the Advocate Commissioner has also reckoned the
Portico portion and therefore, the rent has been fixed at Rs.29,700/-, which is highly
exorbitant and does not commensurate with the value of the property. That apart, it is
submitted that even though the property was purchased by the respondent on
10.07.2009 from the previous owner Kursheeth Begum, the rent control proceedings
in R.C.O.P.No.126 of 2015 was filed only in 2015. That apart, it is submitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1198 of 2023
the respondent had attempted to evict the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner had
also filed O.S.No.860 of 2008 for a bare injunction and that the said suit came to be
decreed.
4.The respondent had also filed a parallel proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.117 of
2015, to evict the petitioner, which was decreed and that an appeal has been filed by
the petitioner in R.C.A.No.41 of 2017. In the said proceedings, the petitioner has
filed an Interlocutory Application for sending the signature of the said Vendor
Kursheeth Begum for comparison.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has
suffered concurrent adverse orders in the hands of the Rent Controller in
R.C.O.P.No.126 of 2015 on 24.07.2020 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority in
R.C.A.No.4 of 2020 on 27.04.2022. Therefore, no interference is called. It is further
submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned and does not call for interference.
6.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
7.There is no scope for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Rent
Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, affirming the decision of the
Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.126 of 2015, vide the order, dated 24.07.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1198 of 2023
8.This Court is concerned with the procedure adopted by the Rent Controller
while arriving at the fair rent. A reading of the order passed by the Rent Controller,
which stands affirmed by the judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority, indicates that there is a proper application of mind to the report filed by
the registered Valuer appointed by the Advocate Commissioner in a proceeding
initiated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act,
1960, for fixation of fair rent. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. All other
rights of the petitioner are left open to be canvassed in R.C.A.No.41 of 2017. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes/No 02.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
smn2
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1198 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.1198 of 2023
02.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
