SUSAINATHAN Vs. T VIJAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions arise out of an order passed under Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The landlords are the petitioners in both the revisions. One Adaikala Mary was the landlady who filed the application and the petitioners were brought on record as her legal representatives pending C.R.P. Since the 1st petitioner died, the 2nd petitioner his son was recognised as the 1st petitioner's legal representative for the purpose of prosecuting the revisions.

(2.) ADAIKALA Mary, the landlady filed R.C.O.P. No.603 of 1993 for fixing the fair rent. According to her, the fair rent per month was Rs.2,954. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,774. Against this, the tenant filed R.C.A. No.274 of 1995 and the landlords filed R.C.A. No.311 of 1995. The appellate Authority allowed the tenant's appeal and dismissed the landlords appeal by fixing the fair rent at Rs.1,374 per month. Against this, the two revisions have been filed by the landlord. The tenant has not filed any revision.

(3.) IN the decision reported in M/s.Dovo Tax Company v. T.R.Ramanath M/s.Dovo Tax Company v. T.R.Ramanath M/s.Dovo Tax Company v. T.R.Ramanath 1999 L.W. 269, the landlords claimed that the building would fetch a rent of Rs.1,250. The Rent controller fixed the fair rent at a higher rate. The tenant contended that he could not. This High Court held thus: