V. Seethalakshmi Ammal vs P.R. Rajammal and Another

Kailasam, J.—The petition is filed by the tenant against the order of the District Judge, Madurai, fixing Rs. 120 as the fair rent for the premises. The Respondents, who were the Petitioners before the Rent Controller, Madurai Town, filed a petition for fixing the fair rent at Rs. 350 per month. The present Petitioner, who was the Respondent before the Rent Controller, resisted the application and submitted that the rent of Rs. 32-8-0 which she was paying was the proper rent. She also submitted that the landlords agreed for fixing the rent at Rs. 32-8-0 and, therefore, it was not open to the landlords to ask for enhanced rent now. It is unnecessary to consider the contentions raised by the tenant, as the petition has to be remanded to the Rent Controller for disposal again on a legal objection taken by the Petitioner.

In deciding the question of fair rent, the Rent Controller based his conclusion on the report submitted by a Commissioner appointed by him. After referring to the accommodation in the premises, the Rent Controller also accepted the report regarding the location, depreciation, etc. It is admitted that the Rent Court is not a civil Court and the CPC is not applicable to the Rent Court. Neither the Act nor the rules authorize the appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of inspecting and submitting a report regarding the determination of fair rent in an application u/s 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In Rayala Corporation v. Syed Bawker and Co. ILR (1957) Mad. 856 a Bench of this Court held that Rent Controllers are not Courts and that proceedings before them will not be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Civil Revision Petition No. 366 of 1963, it was held that the ascertainment of fair rent is a judicial adjudication and it cannot be delegated to a Commissioner, and the rules made under the Rent Control Act envisage only a personal inspection by the Rent Controller, in case it becomes necessary. The order of the lower Court issuing a commission for the ascertainment of fair rent was set aside. When the Rent Controller has no power to appoint a Commissioner, the report of the Commissioner by itself cannot be evidence. It may be if the Commissioner is examined as a witness, he may rely on his report to substantiate his evidence. It is unnecessary to consider the matter any further, for, in this case, the Courts below have relied on the valuation given by the Commissioner.

The orders of the Courts below cannot be sustained and are, therefore, set aside. The matter will be remanded to the Rent Controller, who will dispose of the petition afresh, if necessary, after permitting the parties to adduce evidence. There will be no order as to costs.