N.Vijayalakshmi v. Boopathi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.01.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P.(NPD)No.4838 of 2011 N.Vijayalakshmi Rep. By her Power of Attorney, N.Parthasarthy .. Petitioner Vs.

1.Boopathi 2.B.Kasthuri Proprietrix, "Janatha power laundry"

ground floor New Nos.5 and 7 Old Nos.3 and 4 Raghaviah road T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 18 of 1960, against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011 made in R.C.A.No.365 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Judge, Chennai, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 31.01.2005 made in R.C.O.P.No.1052 of 2004 on the file of the XII Small Causes Judge, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Premkumar For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Ashok

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011 made in R.C.A.No.365 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Judge, Chennai, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 31.01.2005 made in R.C.O.P.No.1052 of 2004 on the file of the XII Small Causes Judge, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to landlady and tenants.

3. Facts of the case:

According to the landlady, she is owner of the petition premises. The tenants are in occupation of the shop portion in the ground floor of the premises bearing new Door Nos.5 and 7 (Old Door Nos.3 and 4), Raghaviah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.1850/- exclusive of electricity charges. The petition building is situated in very important commercial locality and very near to several business

establishments such as shopping malls, Textile Show rooms, Jewellery marts, offices of both the Government and Private, bus stand, market, schools and Kalyana Mandapam. The construction of the petition building is Type-I construction. The superstructure is constructed in Cement mortar, RCC roofing, cement mortar flooring, rolling shutter and cement plastered walls. The land value of the petition premises is Rs.60 lakhs per ground and the landlady claimed fair rent to be fixed at Rs.4842/- p.m. 4.The first respondent herein filed counter statement and submitted that he is not a tenant and M/S.Janatha Power Laundry is the tenant under the landlady and its proprietrix is second respondent herein. He stated that the petition premises is situated in an interior residential area of T.Nagar far away from the important places.

The property is not in the bus route. No basic amenities are provided except electricity amenities. There is no Schedule - I amenities in the petition premises. The age of the building is 60 years and depreciation has to be calculated at 11⁄2 %. According to him, the value of the land is Rs.15 lakhs per ground. The plinth area is only 210 sq.ft. He submitted that the fair rent claimed by the landlady is exorbitant.

5.Before the learned Rent Controller, on behalf of the landlady, her power agent was examined as P.W.1 and one Chellaiah Sarathy, the Engineer was examined as P.W.2 and marked three documents as Exs.P1 to P3. On behalf of the tenants, one Deenatha Rao, the Engineer was examined as R.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs.R1 to R5. One Thiru.Venkataraman was examined as Court witness C.W.1 and the xerox copies of the guideline value register maintained at the T.Nagar Sub-Registrar Office were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

6.The learned Rent Controller, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, fixed the fair rent at Rs.2745/- p.m. 7.Aggrieved by the fair and decretal order dated 31.01.2005, the landlady filed R.C.A.No.365 of 2005 for enhancement of fair rent and tenants filed R.C.A.No.371 of 2005 for reduction of fair rent fixed. The learned Appellate Authority independently considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and order of the learned Rent Controller, dismissed both the appeals filed by the landlady and tenants respectively, confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller.

8.Against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011 made in R.C.A.No.365 of 2005, C.R.P.No.4838 of 2011 is filed by the landlady.

9.Heard the learned counsel for the landlady as well as the tenants and perused the materials available on record.

10. Both the learned counsel appearing for the landlady and tenants submitted that they are restricting their arguments only with regard to land value and they are accepting the facts of the case with regard to the cost of construction, basic amenities, depreciation and Schedule-I amenities. The Courts below have given cogent and valid reason for arriving at the said findings and there is no reason or circumstances warranting interference by this Court.

11. From the order of the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority, it is seen that the Courts below have properly considered and appreciated the facts of the case. As far as the land value arrived at is concerned, the learned Rent Controller fixed the land value at Rs.22 lakhs per ground and the same was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The Courts below

have arrived at this value based on the values given in the certified copies of the Sale deed Nos.175/2004 and 192/2004 produced and marked by the tenants as Exs.R2 and R4 through which landlady purchased the petition premises. The two sale deeds through which landlady has purchased the petition premises were referred to the Collector, Stamps by the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, as according to the Sub Registrar, the sale amount mentioned in the said sale deeds do not reflect correct market value. On such reference, the Collector after following the procedure contemplated, under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, fixed the value of the land at Rs.1600/- per sq.ft.

The Courts below erred in not accepting the market value fixed by the Collector, Stamps and has taken only the value mentioned in the two sale deeds through which landlady purchased the petition premises. 12.In view of the failure on the Courts below to take into account the value fixed by the Collector at Rs.1600/- per sq.ft. and the endorsement made in the sale deeds for collection of deficit stamp duty, the value of the land fixed by the Courts below is to be modified. Taking into consideration the Collector, Stamps, who is the competent Authority has fixed the value of the land at Rs.

per sq.ft. which has to be taken as correct market value for calculating the fair rent in the present petition. The market value fixed by the Collector is more than the guideline value as per the Court Exs.C1 and C2 marked through the Court witness. Taking Rs.1600/- per sq.ft as market value, the value of the land per ground is Rs.38,40,000/-. Taking market value at Rs.38,40,000/- per ground, the fair rent is calculated as follows: Calculation :

1.Cost of construction:

Ground floor R.C.C. built-up extent 244 sq.ft. X Rs.350 Rs.85400.00 2.Basic Amenities at 5% 85400 X (5/100) 4270.00 --------------- 89670.00 3.Depreciated value at 1% for 35 years 89670 X 0.703 63038.00 4.Land value at Rs.38,40,000/- per ground 227.67 X 38,40,000 364272.00 5.Total value of land and building 427310.00 6.Schedule-I amenities @ 1% 427310 X 1/100 4273.1 --------------- 7.Total value 431583.1

At 12% annual rent value, the fair rent per month is 431583.1 X 12/100 X 1/12 = Rs.4315.831/- rounded off to Rs.4316/- Thus, the fair rent is fixed at Rs.4316/- modifying the fair rent fixed by the Courts below. In all other aspects, the order and judgment of the Courts below are confirmed.

13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed fixing the fair rent at Rs.4316/- payable from the date of filing of the petition. No costs.

11.01.2018 ( 4 /9) Index :: Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order kj To 1.The XII Small Causes Judge Chennai.

2.The VIII Small Causes Judge Chennai.

V.M.VELUMANI, J.

kj C.R.P.(NPD)No.4838 of 2011 11.01.2018 (4 /9 )