Perumal Naidu and P. Ponmozhi vs T.V. Badrinath

S. Rajeswaran, J.—These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 1.11.2902/ in R.C.A.Nos.6 and 8 of 2002 passed by

the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddalore), against the order dated 12.4.2002 in RCOP No. 10/1999, on the file of

the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Cuddalore, respectively.

The tenant is the petitioner in both the revision petitions. He is aggrieved by the common order of the rent control appellate authority dated

1.11.2002 made in RCA Nos. 6/2802 and 8/2002.

The respondent herein filed RCOP No. 10/1999 u/s 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called ''the

Act'', for fixing the fair rent for the petition schedule property at Rs. 2,000/- per month. In his petition the respondent herein stated that the original

tenant Perumal Naidu was paying only Rs. 50/-per month for the petition premises wherein he was doing a jewellery business and the property is

located in a very valuable place where a number of jewellery shops are doing good business and similarly located shops are fetching a monthly

income of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore the respondent prayed to fix the fair rent at Rs. 2,000/- per month.

The original tenant resisted the fair rent petition by contending that the monthly rent of Rs. 50/- itself is the fair rent and he is not doing any

jewellery business in the petition premises but was doing only jewellery repair work. The rent controller after going through the evidence, fixed a

sum of-Rs. 1,000/- per month for the petition premises and aggrieved by the same the tenant filed RCA No. 6/2902 and the landlord filed RCA

No. 8/2002. The appellate authority increased the fair rent fixed by the rent controller from Rs. 1,084/- to Rs. 1,675/- per month in RCA No.

8/2092 by allowing it partly and dismissed RCA No. 6/2002 filed by the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant alone has filed both the above

revision petitions.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of

their submissions.

During the pendency of the revision petitions the original tenant /1st revision petitioner passed away and his daughter was brought on record as

his Legal Representative by order dated 7.10.2005.

It is not in dispute and in fact admitted by both the parties that the petition premises is situated in the centre of the town. But the extent of the

property was stated as 148 sq.ft., by the landlord and 117 sq.ft., by the tenant. After going through the municipality tax receipt and the report of

the court appointed commissioner, the rent controller found, that the claim of the landlord, was correct and the extent is 140 sq.ft., and mot 117

sq.ft. The value of the building was arrived at as per the valuation of the P.W.D. Engineer and the value of the land was valued at Rs. 61,426/- by

the Advocate Commissioner on the basis of the guideline value fixed by the Sub-Registrar office. Based on this guideline value the advocate-

commissioner arrived at the fair rent at Rs. 898/- per month and the rent controller arrived at Rs. 1,000/- per month.

The appellate authority, concurred with the findings of the rent controller in all other aspects except the value of the land fixed by the rent

controller at Rs. 61,466/- on the basis of the guideline value. The appellate authority relied on the evidence of P.W.2, who is doing real estate

business, who deposed that similarly situated shops in the same locality are fetching a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Accordingly the appellate

authority fixed the value of the land at Rs. 1,22,851.64 and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1,675/-per month.

I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the appellate authority warranting interference by this Court. The rent controller has wrongly

fixed the value of the land by relying on the guideline value which is not correct as per the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Sakthi and

Co. Vs. Shree Desigachary, . Therefore the appellate authority has correctly disregarded the guideline value and considered the location of the

shop and the evidence of P.W.2, a real estate businessman and arrived at the land value, which cannot be found fault with. Therefore I do not find

any grounds to interfere with the order of the appellate authority in fixing the fair rent at Rs. 1,675/- per month to the petition premises.

In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions re dismissed. No costs. CM.P.No.7809/2003 is also dismissed.