M L YACOOB SHERIFF Vs. RAJRANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions were filed against the common judgment and decrees dated 30.4.1998 and made in R.C.A. Nos.269 of 1997 and 271 of. 1997 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras confirming the order of the learned iXm Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in R.C.O.P, No.2434 of 1983 dated 31.1.1997.

(2.) M .L.Yacoob Sheriff, who was the petitioner 'in the Rent Control Original Petition, was the owner of the property described in the Rent Control Original Petition. He died on 3.3.1995 while this matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A. Nos.3557 of 1989 and 3558 of 1989. The petitioners 1 to 5 in Civil Revision Petition No.895 of 1999 are the legal representatives of the deceased M.L.Yacoob Sheriff. M.L.Yacoob Sheriff leased out the property described in the amended Rent Control Petition to Rajrani Devi, who is the respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.895 of 1999 and revision petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.535 of 2000 for a sum of Rs.255 per month inclusive of maintenance and water charges. For convenient reference, the revision petitioners in C.R.P. No.895 of 1999, who are the respondents in C.R.P. No.535 of 2000, be referred to as the 'revision petitioners' while the respondent in C.R.P. No.895 of 1999, who is the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No.535 of 2000, be referred to as the 'respondent'. In the premises let .out to the respondent, who is the tenant, there is a building measuring about 2455 Sqft apart from a vacant site measuring about 6664 Sqft described in item Nos. 1 and 2 in the lease agreement entered into between M.L.Yacoob Sheriff, the father of the revision petitioners, and the respondent on 29.1.1964. The property is situated at Thambu Chetty Lane, Royapuram, Madras -13 wherein Police Quarters, Hospital, Cinema Theatre and market, etc. are situated. The building is aged about 33 years and was constructed with cement and mortar with ACC roof. The market value of the site will be Rs. 2 lakhs per ground. Schedule I amenity of 25% and basic amenities of 10% have to be given for the amenities provided for the above said property. Though the old door number for the items l and 2 described in the lease agreement were 47A and 48, the corresponding new door Nos. are 5 and 4 respectively. It is on these grounds, the fair rent of Rs.5,900 per month was sought to be fixed in the original petition but revised claim of Rs.6,456 per month was claimed as fair rent in the amended petition.

(3.) AFTER considering the material evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.2725 per month in his order dated 18.9.1984 in R.C.O.P. No.2434 of 1983 on the file of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras at the first instance. Aggrieved at the order and decretal order dated 18.9.1984 and made in R.C.O.P. No.2434 of 1983, the landlord M.L.Yacoob Sheriff filed the appeal in R.C.A. No.252 of 1985 while the respondent (tenant), has filed the appeal in R.C.A. No.234 of 1985 on the file of the learned iVm Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. After considering the submissions made on both sides, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had fixed the fair rent at Rs.3,972 per month by allowing the appeal filed by M.L.Yacoob Sheriff as landlord in R.C.A. No.252 of 1985 and dismissed the appeal in R.C.A. No.234 of 1985 filed by the respondent (tenant) as appellant by common judgment dated 29.10.1985. Aggrieved at the common judgment and decrees dated 29.10.1985, the tenant, the respondent herein, preferred civil revision petitions in C.R.P. Nos.2730 of 1986 and 2731 of 1986 against the common judgment and decrees in R.C.A. Nos.252 of 1985 and 234 of 1985 respectively. After considering the submissions made on both sides in both Civil Revision Petitions, this Court was pleased to confirm the common judgment and decrees passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and dismissed both Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos.2730 of 1986 and 2731 of 1986 by common order dated 17.11.1988. Aggrieved at the said common order, the tenant, who is the respondent herein, had filed Special Leave Petitions and they were admitted and numbered as C.A. Nos.3557 of 1989 and 3558 of 1989 on the file of the Honourable Apex Court. Since the revision petitioners and the respondent herein have relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in H.C.Lodha v. Dr. C.Ranganathan and others, AIR 1989 Mad. 225 to fix the fair rent and persuaded the Apex Court to direct this High Court to follow the abovesaid Full Bench ruling to fix the fair rent, the Apex Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the High Court, Madras in the civil revision petitions thereby allowing the Civil Appeals referred to above without costs and remanded the matter back to the High Court, Madras to dispose of the Civil Revision petitions by fixing fair rent in the light of the Full Bench decisions referred to above within a period of six months. The Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos.2730 of 1986 and 2731 of 1986 were restored to file on the file of this Court and arguments were advanced on both sides before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge was pleased to hold as follows: " 6. According to the petitioner in the revision petitions, for the purpose of fixing fair rent for a building, the Court has to take into account only the area of the building let out by the landlord viz., 2455 Sqft plus one half thereof and arrive at the market value of the same. The entire remaining extent of vacant site let out by the landlord should be taken only as amenity. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent / landlord is that for the purpose of calculating the market value of the site, the total extent on which the building as at present stands, i.e., the building put up by the landlord plus the building put up by the tenant should be taken into account plus one half of the said site for the purpose of calculating the market value of the site. It is only the remaining extent of site, which should be considered as amenity.