UBEROI LIMITED Vs. M NACHIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the judgement and decrees dated 11.2.2008 passed by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCA Nos.1072 and 1634 of 2003 modifying the order dated 20.8.2003 passed by the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, in RCOP No.1096 of 2002, these civil revision petitions are focussed by the tenant.

(2.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revisions would run thus: (a) The respondents herein filed the RCOP as against the revision petitioner/tenant for fixing the fair rent in respect of a non-residential building situated at Anna Salai, Chennai. The matter was contested by the revision petitioners/tenants. (b) On the side of the respondents/landlords, one Chellaiha Sarathy was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the revision petitioner/tenant's side, one H.B.Jaggi was examined as R.W.1 along with Azeez Mohideen as R.W.2 and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked. (c) Ultimately, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.67,884/-. (d) As against the said order, the tenant as well as the landlords preferred separate appeals in R.C.A.Nos.1072 and 1634 of 2003. At the appellate stage, Exs.R8 and R9 were marked. (e) The appellate authority, after hearing both sides enhanced the fair rent from Rs.67,884/- to Rs.84,520/-, thereby partly allowed the appeal preferred by the landlords and dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenant.

(3.) PER contra, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The appellate authority taking into account the fact that the demised premises is situated just abetting Anna Salai, arrived at the conclusion that the Rent Controller was not justified in fixing the land value in a sum of Rs.50 lakhs per ground and that too without adhering to Ex.P2, which shows higher value even in the year 1999. (ii) Exs.R8 and R9 by no stretch of imagination could be taken as genuine documents reflecting the true value of the ground for the reason that the properties covered by those documents are abetting State Bank Road, which is a side road, branching from Anna Salai, whereas, the demised premises is facing Anna Salai and Ex.P2 would evince and evidence that even in the year 1999 per ground was worth more than Rs.70 lakhs. As such, the appellate authority correctly fixed the value in a sum of Rs.70 lakhs per ground, warranting no interference by this Court.