KELU NEDUNGADI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT FISHERIES TECHNOLOGICAL STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute about the fixation of fair rent for a building under the control and management of the petitioner and which has been taken on rent by the respondent, has given rise to this revision petition. The building is situated at an important locality within the municipal town of Kozhikode and it is taken on rent by the Fisheries Department of the State. The office of the Superintendent, Fisheries Technological Station at Kozhikode is housed in this building. The rent offered by the department is Rs. 70 per month. On the allegation that this rent is extremely low, the petitioner filed a petition R.C. No. 223/1952 before the Rent Controller at Kozhikode, praying for an order under S.4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act XXV of 1949) as amended by Act VIII of 1951. The stand taken by the petitioner was that Rs. 175 per month would be a fair rent for the building in question. After considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner and also making the other inquiries, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that Rs. 105 per month would be a fair rate of rent for the building and accordingly passed an order fixing the fair rent at that rate. The petitioner landlordtook up the matter in appeal (C.M.A. 18/1953) to the Subordinate Judge at Kozhikode who is also the appellate authority for matters arising under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The appellate authority varied the order of the Rent Controller by fixing Rs. 135 per month as the fair rent for the building. The respondent tenant challenged this order by preferring civil revision petition No. 431/1953 before the District Judge of South Malabar. The District Judge allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the Rent Controller. The landlord has, therefore, filed this petition seeking a revision of the District Judges order on the ground that the District Judge has acted illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the appellate authority.

(2.) The grounds on which the learned District Judge set aside the order of the appellate authority are that in enhancing the rent to Rs. 135 per month, the appellate authority was acting on surmises and that the evidence on record is not sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the appellate authority. In making such a criticism the learned District Judge has overlooked the fact that the evidence and the circumstances relied on by the appellate authority are the same on which the Rent Controller also acted in fixing the fair rent at Rs. 105 per month. Under S.4 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the Rent Controller is authorised to conduct such inquiries as he thinks fit for the purpose of fixing the fair rent of a building on the application of the tenant or the landlord. Even though a great latitude is allowed to him in this matter, it is obvious that he is not to act capriciously or arbitrarily. Sub-s.2 of S.4 specifies the matters which have to be taken into account by the Controller in the matter of fixing the fair rent of a building and these are: (1) the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the 12 months prior to the 1st April 1940; (b) the rental value of the building as entered in the Municipal Tax Assessment Book of the Municipal Council or the Local Board, as the case may be, relating to the period specified in Cl. (a), and (c) the circumstances of the case including any amount paid by the tenant by way of premium or any other sum in addition to rent after the 1st of April 1940. These are only matters for the guidance of the Rent Controller and it cannot be said that all the particulars specified in Cls. (a), (b) and (c) should be made available to him before he proceeds to pass an order fixing in fair rent. If all such particulars are made available to him, he is undoubtedly bound to pay due regard to them while fixing the fair rent. At the same time, it is clear that even if some only of these particulars are available, he will be justified in acting on them and coming to his own conclusion in fixing the fair rent. The circumstances referred to in Cl. (c) may not be the same for all buildings, but may vary from building to building. So far as the present case is concerned, the attitude adopted by the tenant was such that the landlord was not put to the necessity of adducing exhaustive evidence in support of his claim for an enhancement of the rent. PW. 1 examined on his behalf clearly deposed that during the period from 1939 to 1940 the rent for a building similar to the building under consideration, in this particular locality would have been more than Rs. 100 per month and that such a building would now fetch a rent between Rs. 150 and 200 per month. He further stated that for a smaller building just opposite the building under consideration and which had been let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 70, the fair rent has been enhanced to Rs. 135 per month. PW. 1 was not cross examined and hence the statements made by him remain unchallenged. The Rent Controller made a local inspection and was satisfied that the building in question is bigger in size than the adjoining building for which fair rent has been fixed at Rs. 135 per month and has also greater amenities on account of the existence of a separate kitchen, a store room and two other spare rooms, a cow shed, a car shed and an extensive compound. The only reason which weighed with the Rent Controller for not fixing the fair rent for this building at Rs. 135 is that this building looked slightly older than the other building. But the appellate authority was of the view that the circumstances that this building is larger in size than the other and that it has the extra amenities already referred to, are more than sufficient to make up for the handicap on account of its being slightly older as compared with the other building. The inference drawn by the appellate authority that the smaller building must have been fetching a rent of at least Rs. 90 per month during the period of one year preceding 1st April 1940, cannot be characterised as a mere surmise, because on such a basis alone the rent of that building could have been enhanced to Rs. 135 per month which represents the maximum increase by 50% as sanctioned by sub-s. 4 of S.4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The appellate authority was fully competent to consider all these aspects relating to the evidence on record and to come to an independent conclusion as to what should be the fair rent for the building. Under sub-s.3 of S.12 of the Act he is empowered to make any further inquiry as he may think fit for the purpose of fixing the fair rent.

(3.) The power of revision specially conferred on the High Court and on the District Judge under S.12(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is restrictive in its very nature and is entirely different from the power conferred on the appellate authority under S.12 of the Act. What is enacted in S.12(b) is that the court of revision may call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by the authority empowered to act under S.9 and 12 of the Act for the purpose of satisfying, itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. This means that the revisional court cannot reassess the evidence on record and examine its sufficiency and acceptability and thus test the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Subordinate Court. That is the function of an appellate court and not of the court of revision. Interference in revision will be justified only if it is seen that the order or proceeding in question is vitiated by any patent illegality, irregularity or impropriety. To transgress this limitation would be to convert a revision into a regular appeal. This position has been explained and emphasised in Gnanasabhapathi Mudaliar v. Sivagnanam Pillai, 1955 (I) MLJ page 286 and in Balasubramonia Pillai v. Govindarajulu Naidu, 1955 (II) MLJ Short Notes page 3, where also the scope of the revisional jurisdiction under S.12(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act had come up for consideration.