C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.20873 of 2021
Devarajan (Died)
D.Govindrajan
S/o.Devarajan ... Petitioner in CRP.2346 and
2347/2021
Farwood Industries Ltd.
Rep. By its Chairman
Mr.M.P.Farook ... Petitioner in
CRP.2896/2021
Vs.
Farwood Industries Ltd.
Rep. By its Chairman
Mr.M.P.Farook ... Respondent in
CRP.2346 and 2347/2021
Devarajan (Died)
D.Govindrajan
S/o.Devarajan ... Respondent
in CRP.2896/2021
COMMON PRAYER in CRP.No.2346 and 2347 of 2021: Civil Revision
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:57 am )
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
Petitions are filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, against the judgment
and decree dated 25.02.2021 in R.C.A.No.379 of 2016 and R.C.A.No.91 of
2020, on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, varying
the order and decree passed in R.C.O.P No.1194 of 2010 dated 18.04.2016 on
the file of XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
PRAYER in CRP No.2896 of 2021: Civil Revision Petition is filed under
Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960,
against the decree and judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.379 of
2016, by the VII Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court at Chennai, modifying the
fair and decreetal order dated 18.04.2016 passed in R.C.O.P No.1194 of 2010
by the XV Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner
in CRP.2346 &2347/2021 : Mr.V.Sivakumar
for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam
For Petitioner
in CRP.2896/2021 : Mr.J.Hudson Samuel & Partners
For Respondent : Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul , Senior Advocate
in CRP.2346 &2347/2021 for Paul & Paul
For Respondent : Mr.V.Sivakumar
in CRP.2896/2021 for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam
COMMON ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:57 am )
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
These three civil revision petitions challenge the orders passed by the
Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.379 of 2016 and R.C.A.No.91
of 2020 dated 25.02.2021 in modifying the decreetal order of the learned Rent
Controller in R.C.O.P.No.1194 of 2010 dated 18.04.2016.
2.For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as landlord
and tenant.
3.The landlord presented R.C.O.P.No.1194 of 2010 under Section 4 of
the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is
a petition for fixation of fair rent. Pending the proceedings, the landlord had
settled the property in favour of his son one D.Govindrajan. Hence,
D.Govindrajan was impleaded as 2nd petitioner with the permission of the
Court in M.P.No.448 of 2013 on 08.07.2014.
4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord examined himself as PW1,
an engineer as PW2 and the newly impleaded 2nd petitioner as PW3. He
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the side of the tenants, one M.V.Ravindran was
examined as RW1 and a sale deed under Ex.R1 was received.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:57 am )
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
5.The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the pleadings and
evidence, came to the conclusion as follows:
i. that the building is a Type-II building.
ii. It is aged about 30 years.
iii.The extent is about 1656 sq. ft.
iv. Basic amenities are available and hence 10% was awarded
towards the same.
v. The age of the building was calculated as 30 years; and
vi. depreciation of 0.635 was ordered.
6. He fixed the market value of the petition premises at Rs.1 crore. On
the basis of these findings, he fixed the fair rent at Rs.70,78,109/- per month.
7.Aggrieved by the same, the landlord and tenant preferred two appeals.
The appeal by the tenant was numbered as R.C.A.No.379 of 2016 and the
appeal preferred by the landlord was numbered as R.C.A.No.91 of 2020.
8.Two major disputes were raised before the Rent Control Appellant
Authority, the first one being that the rent control petition had been filed
against a proprietorship concern, but the order has been passed against an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:57 am )
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
incorporated company. The second issue being that Ex.P6 which had been
relied upon by the 2nd petitioner - landlord showed the market value at Rs.20
lakhs and the Court ought to have fixed the value accordingly.
9.The learned Rent Control Authority agreed with the Rent Controller
as regards the apportionment area, depreciation, basic amenities, type and age
of the building. The appellate authority rejected both the pleas of the tenant
and came to a conclusion that the plinth area of the building should be taken
as 1558 sq. ft. as against 1656 sq. ft. He further held that being a settlement
deed, it cannot be used for the purpose of market value when a sale deed for
an adjacent property had been produced by the landlord. Consequent to
reduction in extent, he allowed the appeal filed by the tenant reducing the fair
rent to Rs.66,984/-. Hence the Revision.
10. I heard Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul, Senior Counsel for M/s.Paul & Paul
and Mr.V.Sivakumar for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates.
11.At the outset, I should point out that the scope of Revision under the
Erstwhile Act, 18 of 1960 does not enable me to re-appreciate evidence. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:57 am )
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
pointed out, this is a concurrent finding with respect to the age of the building,
depreciation, value as well as the apportionment area. The dispute is as
regards to who is the tenant and on value of the land.
12.When the rent control petition was filed, the tenant was shown as
M/s.Farwood Industries Limited, represented by its proprietor Mr.M.P.Farook.
During the course of the proceedings, the tenant had moved an application
under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
He had described himself as M/s.Farwood Industries Limited represented by
its Chairman M.P.Farook. The petition which had been numbered as
M.P.No.337 of 2015. It had been dismissed holding that the tenant is the
incorporated company namely M/s.Farwood Industries Limited. The tenant
having held himself out before the Rent controller, as well as before the Rent
Control appellate authority as an incorporated company: it is too late for the
tenant to plead that the original tenant was Mr.M.P.Farook in his personal
capacity and not the incorporated company.
13.Insofar as the value of the land is concerned, a settlement deed, that
has been relied upon by the tenant, had already been produced by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:57 am )
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
landlord. It is a settlement deed executed by the first landlord in favour of the
second landlord. The relationship between the first and the second landlord
are that of father and son. In such a document, the parties give only a nominal
value for the property. This is on account of the fact that the stamp duty that
is being paid for the document is of a fixed value. I hasten to add I have not
concluded in this order that a settlement deed cannot reflect the market value.
In the facts and circumstances in this case, I am constrained to reach the
conclusion that the value of the property given in the settlement deed cannot
gain precedence over Ex.P4 dated 30.04.2008.
14.An other reason why I would prefer to go with Ex.P4 as done by the
trial court and the lower appellate court is because Ex.P6 had come about
pending the rent control petition. Post litem motam documents are normally
not preferred by the Courts, because such documents are capable of being
tampered to suit the convenience of the parties.
15.Further, the property is situated in a prestigious locality in Chennai,
namely, the Lattice Bridge Road. It has several locational advantages.
Therefore, fixation of Rs.1 crore by the trial Court when the sale deed under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:57 am )
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
Ex.P4 is for Rs.2 crores and above, cannot be found fault with.
16.In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to
interfere. All the above three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The
order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority stands
confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
19.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes / No
Neutral Citation
To.
1.VII Judge
Court of Small Causes
Chennai
2. XV Judge
Court of Small Causes
Chennai
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:57 am )
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021
19.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 11:36:57 am )
