P. VENKATASWAMI Vs. ABDUL RAHIM AND BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these two Revision Petitions is the Receiver appointed in the proceedings in T.O.S. No. 9 of 1947 on the file of the Original Side of this Court. As such Receiver he let out a tiled shop, premises No. 13 and a godown, premises No. 9 in the Evening Bazaar Road, Park Town, Madras, on a monthly rental of Rs. 300 to a firm of merchants, Abdul Rahim & Brothers. The terms of the lease were approved and sanctioned by an order of Court, dated 29th September, 1955. The lease was for a period of three years from 22nd July, 1955. The lessee undertook to effect the annual repairs, including white -washing, to the buildings, at his expense.

(2.) THE lessee, after having been in occupation of the premises paying the rent of Rs. 300 per month for a period of 2 years after the lease, filed an application. H.R.C. No. 1755 of 1957 before the House Rent Controller, Madras, praying for fixation of fair rent for the premises. The Receiver, the landlord, resisted the application and contended that it was not open to the tenant to ask for relief by way of fixation of fair rent in view of the agreement to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 300 which was sanctioned by the Court. The Rent Controller inspected the premises and adverted to the fact that the annual valuation of the premises as disclosed in the Property Register maintained by the Corporation of Madras worked out at the rate of a monthly rent of Rs. 160 during the 1939 -1940 and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 240 adding 50 per cent, to Rs. 160. He overruled the contention of the landlord that the application for fixation of fair rent was not maintainable. Both the landlord and the tenant filed appeals against the said decision in the Court of Small Causes at Madras; H.R.A. No. 194 of 1958 was the landlord's appeal and H.R.A. No. 202 of 1958 was the tenant's appeal. The learned Second Judge of the Court of Small Causes found that the tenant in occupation of the premises in the year 1939 -40 actually paid only a rent of Rs. 150 per month, and held that the monthly rental forming the basis of annual, valuation in the books of the Corporation should not be taken as the proper guide and that under the circumstances of the case only an addition of 25 per cent, to Rs. 150 per month was called for and he accordingly fixed Rs. 187 -8 -0 per month as the fair rent. These two Revision Petitions have been preferred by the landlord.

(3.) WE are wholly unable to agree with the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes that the extracts, Exhibits P -1 and P -2 from the Property Tax Register of the Corporation, which unmistakably show that the annual value was fixed on the basis of a monthly rental of Rs. 160 should or can be ignored. The evidence that during the year 1939 -40, the tenant of the premises paid only Rs. 150 per month is very slender and certainly the Rent Controller was not impressed with that evidence. It is no doubt true that the landlord -Receiver was not in a position to deny the statement of the tenant that the premises fetched a rent of Rs. 150 during the material period prior to 1st April, 1940. We are inclined to attach more importance to the extracts from the Corporation Register than the oral evidence in the case regarding the rent paid by the tenant prior to 1940. It must therefore be taken that the monthly rental for the premises prior to 1st April, 1940 was only the sum of Rs. 160.