CRP/2788/2000 of DR.R.HARI RAMESH Vs T.PRAMOD WILSON on 24 December 2003

:O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgmentand decree dated 6.1.2000 rendered in R.C.A.No.815 of 1996 by the VIII Judge,Court of Small Causes, Madras, thereby confirming the fair and decretal orderdated 31.1.1996 made in R.C.O.P.No.422 of 1994 by the Rent Controller (XIVJudge, Court of Small Causes), Madras.

2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petitionhaving come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondentslandlordshave filed the R.C.O.P.No.422 of 1994 under Section 4 of the Tamil NaduBuidings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')before the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras prayingto fix the fair rent at Rs.35,506/= per mensem from Rs.3,000/= p.m. for thepetition premises which is a nonresidential building situated in Indira Nagar,Chennai and the above R.C.O. P. was allowed thereby fixing the fair rent atRs.17,834/=. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-tenant preferred anappeal in R.C.A.No.815 of 1996 before the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes,Madras praying to set aside the fair and decretal order of the Rent Controllerin the fixation of the said fair rent and the learned Appellate Authority

dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the Rent Controller.Aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant has come forward to file the above civilrevision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds ofrevision such as that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is contrary tolaw and without jurisdiction; that the finding of the lower Appellate Courterred in confirming the order of the Trial Court fixing fair rent atRs.17,834/= per mensem from the date of the petition; that the finding of thelower Appellate Court that the petition premises situates in the importantlocality is erroneous; that the lower Appellate court having held that P.W.2 (Engineer for the respondents) has not followed the correct procedure inarriving at fair rent, ought to have rejected Ex.P1 in toto; that the lowerAppellate Court erred in relying on Ex.P1 report of the respondents' engineeras he had not calculated fair rent as per Section 4 of the Act; that the lowerAppellate Court ought to have accepted the evidence of R.W.1 and fixed fairrent; that the lower Appellate Court ought to have awarded disallowance of 30%of the cost of the building as provided under Section 4(5)(a) of the Act forthe reasons stated by R.W.1 in Ex.R1; that the finding of the lower AppellateCourt that Ex.P1 the report of the respondents' Engineer is correct as per lawis erroneous; that the lower Appellate Court failed to note even as per Ex.P3Sale Deed of the next house, the land value as on 15.7.1994 works out toRs.8,32,877/= per ground and the respondents' are vendors in the said SaleDeed and the value given in the said document is binding on them as it wasmarked through P.W.1; that the lower Appellate Court failed to note Ex.R4 wasa Sale Deed pertaining to a property in Latice Bridge Road and it ought tohave fixed the land value of the petition premises at Rs.4 lakhs per ground;that the lower Appellate Court failed to note that Rs.11,458.99 per mensem isthe fair rent arrived by R.W.1 the petitioner's engineer in Ex.R1 report; thatthe finding of the lower Appellate Court that the decision reported in 1996(1)CTC 567 is not applicable to the facts of the case is erroneous; that thefinding of the lower Appellate Court that the judgment reported in 1974(1) SCC424 is applicable to the facts of the case is erroneous. Hence, the presentcivil revision petition.

3. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, besides having dealt with the facts and circumstances ofthe case as projected by parties, the evidence placed on record, the judgmentsrendered by both the authorities below, would also cite a decision of thisCourt delivered in C.SHANMUGHAM vs. N.S.K. CHOKKALINGAM PILLAI reported in1992-I-L.W.315 wherein while dissecting Section 23 of the Act, adhering to thefacts prevalent therein, a learned single Judge of this Court has held:

"The Appellate Authority has not given any reason for arriving at itsconclusion but merely stated that the finding of the Rent Controller does notcall for interference in the appeal. The Appellate Authority has notindependently considered the evidence available on record. The AppellateAuthority has not even adverted to either the oral or documentary evidence letin by the parties to the proceedings. Even if the merits of the case warrantthe confirmation of the finding of the Rent Controller by the AppellateAuthority, it can do so only after specifically referring to the evidence bothoral and document available on record. The manner in which the AppellateAuthority has disposed of the Rent Control Appeal is not at all satisfactory."

4. On the other hand, on the part of the respondents, the

Arguments

learned counsel appearing for them has only dealt with the subject on factsand figures without pleading any law on the subject and hence this Court isleft with no choice but to arrive at its own conclusion in consideration ofthe facts and circumstances of the case as projected by parties, having regardto the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel forboth in which event, this Court is able to see that the respondents/landlordsherein, pertaining to their premises, which has been leased out in favour ofthe petitioner herein, who is a Doctor and running a Nursing Home in the saidpremises, have filed the RCOP seeking to fix the fair rent at Rs.35,506/= permonth from Rs.3,000/= as per Section 4 of the Act and the Rent Controller,having assessed the facts and circumstances of the case and framing its ownpoint for proper consideration of the question of fair rent for the subjectmatter and further permitting the parties to record evidence during which onthe part of the respondents/landlords, as petitioners therein, they have notonly examined the first petitioner/ landlord as P.W.1 but also yet anotherJoseph, an Engineer, as P.W.2 for oral evidence and for documentary evidence,they have marked three documents as Exs.A.1 to A.3, Ex.A.1 dated 7.8.1995being the report submitted by the Engineer, Ex.A.2 being the sketch and Ex.A.3dated 15.7 .1994 being the sale deed.

5. On the part of the respondent/tenant therein, he has also examined one witness as R.W.1, an Engineer, without even examining himself,besides marking four documents as Exs.B.1 to B.4, Ex.B.1 dated 26.10 .1995being a report by the Engineer, Exs.B2 and B3 being the sketches and Ex.B4dated 17.11.1993 being the copy of the sale deed.

6. The Rent Controller, having taken stock of these materials for proper consideration in the manner advocated by law and having his ownhealthy discussions on the subject and further taking into consideration thevalue of the land and the building and the estimate given by the experts onboth sides and estimating the value of the site at Rs.12 lakhs and havingcalculated the other aspects in the manner required under law, wouldultimately arrive at the valid conclusion to fix the fair rent at Rs.17,834/=as on the date of the RCOP thus passing the fair and decretal order in thefixation of the fair rent connecting to the said petition.

7. Aggrieved, the tenant has preferred an appeal and the appellate authority too, having assessed the facts and figures and thecircumstances therein and having framed its own point for consideration 'whether the Rent Controller is justified in its fair and decretal order in thematter of fixation of fair rent to the petition building' and having had itsown discussions, has arrived at the conclusion that the Rent Controller hasrightly and properly arrived at the conclusion to fix the monthly fair rent atRs.17,834/= and there is no need on his part to cause interference, thusconfirming the fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller and it isagainst this current findings, the petitioner/tenant has come forward to filethe above revision petition.

8. A careful perusal of the entire records placed at the

table, this Court is able to see that the RCOP has been filed in the year 1994

and to the date of filing, the Rent Controller has decided the matter with thefixation of the fair rent at Rs.17,834/= and the same has been confirmed bythe appellate authority, thus both passing the orders in a concurrent manner.It is not only the decisions arrived at by these initial and appellate forumsbut also the manner in which the decisions have been arrived at, taking intoconsideration of those materials placed on record and in full appreciation ofthe same particularly in the appreciation of the evidence in the context ofthe law prevailing on the subject including the procedural paraphernaliaadopted by these authorities, since being to the norms and requirements of lawand falling in line with the propositions held by the upper forums so far, theinterference of this Court sought to be made into such well considered andmerited fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller and the judgmentand decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is neither necessarynor required in the circumstances of the case.

9. The judgment cited on the part of the petitioner is in ageneralised form rendered in adherence to the facts and circumstancesencircling the subject dealt with by the learned single Judge in the year 1991 and the facts prevalent on the subject in hand since being differentparticularly in the passing of the fair and decretal order of the RentController and the judgment and decree by the Rent Control AppellateAuthority, the norms laid therein become inapplicable to the facts of thecase.

In result,(i)the above civil revision petition does not merit acceptance but onlybecomes liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.(ii)The judgment and decree dated 6.1.2000 rendered in R.C.A.No.815 of 1996 bythe Rent Control Appellate Authority and the VIII Judge, Court of SmallCauses, Madras thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 31.1.1996made in RCOP.No.422 of 1994 by the Rent Controller and the XIV Judge, Court ofSmall Causes, Madras is confirmed.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.

Index: Yes

Internet: Yes

kb/Rao

ToThe Registrar,Small Causes Court,Chennai.