AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Rajendran, J.—This tenant has come forward with this revision petition challenging the orders passed by the Courts below fixing the fair
rent for the petition mentioned premises. The landlord has filed the RCOP No. 107 of 1999 for fixation of fair rent in which he prayed for fixing
rent for the petition mentioned premises at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month. The learned Rent Controller, after analysing the oral and
documentary evidence, fixed the fair rent at Rs. 16,190/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant/revision petitioner has filed R.C.A. No. 6
of 2005 before the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority, after demarcating the area under occupation and after reducing the extent of
property than the one which the learned Rent Controller has taken into account, arrived at a sum of Rs. 16,126/- as fair rent. As against the same,
the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
Pending the Civil Revision Petition, M.P. No. 2 of 2012 was filed by the landlord/respondents 1 and 2 herein to implead the third respondent on
the ground that during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the third respondent has purchased the petition mentioned premises. Considering
the said submission, by order dated 28.10.2013, the third respondent was impleaded as a party respondent for complete adjudication of this case.
Before the learned Rent Controller, on behalf of the landlord/respondents 1 and 2 herein, Sanjay, the second respondent was examined as PW
1, one Gopal Sami, Assistant Engineer was examined as PW 2 and Exs. P1, Sale Deed dated 25.08.1999 was marked. On behalf of the
tenant/revision petitioner herein, one Subramaniam was examined as RW 1 but no document was marked. Exs. C1 to C3 were also marked
before the learned Rent Controller as Court Documents.
The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the courts below erred in taking the value at Rs. 1,000/- per square
feet without considering the prevailing market value during the year 1999, when the petition for fixation of fair rent was filed. The learned counsel
for the petitioner would contend that Ex. P1 produced by the landlord/respondents 1 and 2 herein is a document whereby a piece of land was sold
four months back and that land was not situate in the area where the petition mentioned premises is located but in some other area. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ex. P1 is a sale deed dated 25.08.1999 whereas the Rent Control Original Petition was filed on 29.04.1999
and therefore the courts below ought not to have taken into account the price indicated in Ex. P1. Even as per Ex. P1, the value of the land per
square feet was Rs. 501/- and therefore the courts below erred in taking Rs. 1,000/- as value for one square feet of land and it is exorbitant. The
learned counsel for the petitioner also would contend that the depreciation value, as worked out by the courts below, is erroneous. The building
was not 59 years old as on the date of filing of Rent Control Original Petition and therefore also, the fair rent arrived at by the courts below is
incorrect.
The learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the courts below did not fix the value of the land only
on the basis of Ex. P1. Before the learned Rent Controller, PW 2, an Engineer from the Public Works Department was appointed who inspected
the building in question. PW 2 prepared Exs. C2 and C3, valuation reports. While preparing the report, PW 2 has taken into account the
prevailing guideline value, the public works department rate applicable for the building etc., as well as the value noted in Ex. P1. Ultimately, on the
basis of such evidence made available, the courts below fixed the fair rent. To controvert the rates indicated in the documents filed on behalf of the
landlord/respondents 1 and 2, the tenant/revision petitioner has not produced any other document. The tenant has also not appointed an Engineer
of his choice before the Court below to show that the estimate arrived at by PW 2 is incorrect. The appellate authority, taking note of the fact that
the extent of the petition mentioned premises was wrongly mentioned in the Rent Control Original Petition, even though the actual extent is more,
reduced the extent of area and consequently, the fair rent was also reduced. Above all, Ex. P1, sale deed is pertaining to the area adjacent to the
petition mentioned premises and it cannot be said the value indicated therein shall not be taken into account. The land covered under Ex. P1 is also
situate in a bustling commercial area in Coimbatore and it is one of the commercial hubs in the locality. In fact, the fair rent fixed by the courts
below is very meager and it does not call for interference by this Court.
I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that
the fair rent fixed by the courts below is not in accordance with the prevailing market value of the petition mentioned premises. In this connection, it
has to be noted that the tenant/revision petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence before the courts below to prove the correct market
value of the property in question or he has appointed an engineer of his choice. As per the Rent Control Original Petition, the property let out to
the tenant/revision petitioner is 1640 square feet comprising of 1350 square feet built up area and 290 square feet was left vacant. When an
Engineer appointed by the landlord/respondents 1 and 2 inspected the property, he found that the total area in occupation of the tenant is more
than the one stated in the Rent Control Original Petition. The learned Rent Controller therefore fixed the fair rent on the basis of the report of the
Engineer. Whereas, the Appellate Authority confined the area only to the extent indicated in the Rent Control Original Petition and correspondingly
reduced the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller. In other respects, the Appellate Authority accepted the fair rent fixed by the learned
Rent Controller.
As regards value of the building in question, PW 2, an Engineer was examined, who has stated that the guide line value for the property, as on
the date of his examination i.e., on 06.02.2003 was Rs. 1,936/-. The landlord/respondents 1 and 2 herein have also produced Ex. P1 in which the
guide line value was indicated at Rs. 509/- per square feet. The learned Rent Controller taken note of the fact that the property is situate in Raja
Street, a very busy commercial locality in Coimbatore. The learned Rent Controller also taken note of the fact that the property covered under Ex.
P1 is not situate in Raja Street, but in yet another busy locality in Coimbatore Town and adjacent to Raja Street. The learned Rent Controller also
found that the property covered under Ex. P1 is situate near a lane near Raja Street. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller has taken into
consideration that even if the property situate near a lane can fetch Rs. 509/- square feet, then the petition mentioned property, which is situate in
the main Road can be fixed at a higher rate especially when it is situate in a commercial locality. Thus, it is evident that the learned Rent Controller
not only fixed the fair rent for the property on the basis of Ex. P1 but on the basis of the evidence of PW 2, Engineer and other documentary
evidence made available before it.
The learned Rent Controller also taken note of the fact that the guideline value prevailing during the year 2002-2003 itself is Rs. 1,943/- per
square feet and there is escalation of the land price at the rate of 10% every year. Applying 10% escalation every year from 1999-2000, when we
reduce the value from 2002-2003, the value of the land comes to Rs. 1,274/- per square feet for the year 1999-2000. Whereas, the learned Rent
Controller has fixed the value at Rs. 1,100/- per square feet by taking double the amount indicated in Ex. P1, sale deed in respect of a property
which is situated in a lane. In any event, as stated supra, the amount arrived at by the learned Rent Controller is less than the guide line value or
applying 10% escalation value every year. This was also accepted by the Appellate Authority as a fair and reasonable value. Accordingly, both the
courts below have concurrently applied the escalation of the land price and arrived at Rs. 1,100/- as value of the land which was prevailing at the
time of the filing of the Rent Control Original Petition.
While arriving at the fair rent, the Appellate Authority relied on the decision of this Court reported in M.A.A. Mahab and Another Vs. Jayams
Engineering and Co. Ltd., wherein this Court held that the fair rent fixed is on the basis of the evidence made available on record and rejected the
argument that the fair rent was fixed on assumption. By relying on this decision, the Appellate Authority held that the correct value for the petition
mentioned property, which is situate on a busy commercial locality, on the basis of the evidence made available on record, including the report of
PW 2, can be fixed at Rs. 1,100/- per square feet and accordingly fixed the fair rent. I do not find any reason to interfere with such a well
considered finding rendered by both the courts below.
The next point for consideration is with regard to the depreciation to be fixed for the petition mentioned premises. PW 2, Engineer has
inspected the property and gave his report stating that the building is 59 years old. The learned Rent Controller, taking note of the fact that the Rent
Control Original Petition was filed in the year 1999 and that the Petition mentioned premises was inspected by PW 2 during 2003, reduced four
years and arrived at a conclusion that the building is 55 years old as on the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition. It is also to be
mentioned that even though the landlord/respondents 1 and 2 have mentioned in the Rent Control Original Petition that the age of the building is 60
years, that was brushed aside as without any evidence and the age of the building was fixed at 55 years on the basis of the report of PW 2. This
cannot be said to be incorrect and the learned Rent Controller is justified in taking the age of the building at 55 years for the purpose of applying
depreciation.
The learned counsel for the landlord/respondents 1 and 2 submits that even the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority is very meager
considering the fact that the petition mentioned property is situate in a bustling commercial locality in the city of Coimbatore. The respondents 1
and 2 have also categorically indicated in the Rent Control Original Petition itself that the petition mentioned property is situate very near to
commercial business houses, very near to Oppanakara Street, a commercial hub of the Coimbatore town. According to the learned counsel for the
respondents 1 and 2, Raja Street itself, where the petition mentioned premises is situate, is a thickly populated commercial locality where reputed
commercial buildings are located. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would mainly contend that the tenant/revision petitioner has not
objected to the report filed by the Engineer, PW 2 and therefore it is no longer open to the tenant/revision petitioner to contend that the fair rent
fixed by the court below is exorbitant.
This Court also takes note of the conduct of the revision petitioner in not complying with the orders passed by this Court. The tenant/revision
petitioner filed CMP No. 8875 of 2006 seeking interim stay pending disposal of the revision petition. This Court, by order dated 13.08.2006,
granted interim stay on condition that the revision petitioner pays 50% of the arrears of rent and also pay the future rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-
per month from September 2006 onwards. As against this order, the revision petitioner filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17168 of 2006
before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. By order dated 13.10.2006, the Honourable Supreme Court directed the revision petitioner to
deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks and it was also deposited by the revision petitioner. Subsequently, the Honourable Supreme Court passed
a final order on 31.01.2007 and disposed of the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17168 of 2006 by recording the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
deposited by the revision petitioner. However, as per the order dated 13.08.2006 passed by this Court, the tenant/revision petitioner has not paid
the future rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. This conduct of the revision petitioner is also to be taken note of by this Court.
As mentioned above, the tenant/revision petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to controvert the claim for fixation of fair rent
made by the respondents 1 and 2 herein. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the tenant also did not raise
any objection to the report of the Engineer. Further, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1960 cannot set aside the orders passed by the court below unless it is shown that they are perverse and unreasonable. It is not the
case of the revision petitioner that the orders, which are questioned in this Civil Revision Petition, are perverse. It is also seen that both the courts
below gave detailed findings to arrive at a fair rent. The first appellate Court, while concurring with the methodology adopted by the learned Rent
Controller in fixing the fair rent, reduced the fair rent payable to the petition mentioned premises by taking note of the extent of the land indicated in
the Rent Control Original Petition. Of course, the reduction of the fair rent by the Appellate Authority has not been questioned by the respondents
1 and 2 herein by filing any appeal there against. In any event, the fair rent arrived at by both the courts below cannot be said to be unfair or
perverse. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the well considered orders passed by the courts below and consequently, the Civil Revision
Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.