K KALIAMMAL Vs. ATHI V RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 2678 and 3066 of 1981 have been filed by the tenants and the landlords respectively against the order passed by the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge, Karur) under the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (called the Act) in C. M. A. No. 30 of 1980 fixing fair rent for the tenanted premises. THE premises in respect of which fair rent has been fixed is a non-residential building, viz. , a theatre in Karur. Originally, the building had been leased to one Kuppuswami gounder the pre-decessor-in-interest of the tenants on a rent of Rs. 700 per month for the building and Rs. 300 for furniture, etc. While so, the landlords filed R. C. O. P. No. 26 of 1977 for fixation of fair rent for the premises under section 4 of the Act. THE landlord's claimed that a sum of Rs. 4,620 per month would be fair and reasonable. THE tenants stated in their counter-affidavit that a sum of Rs. 1,700 per month would be reasonable rent for the building and Rs. 180 for the furniture. THE Rent Controller fixed the fair rent for the building at Rs. 2,065 per month and for the furniture at Rs. 200 and consolidated the amount in a sum of Rs. 2,265. THE tenant did not feel aggrieved by the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller. However, the landlords filed C. M. A. No. 30 of 1980 before the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Karur ). THE Appellate Authority fixed a fair rent for the building at Rs. 3,000. Since both the parties are not satisfied with the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority, they have filed these civil revision petitions.

(2.) THESE civil revision petitions have been posted for being disposed of by the Bench on account of a conflict of opinion expressed by two learned Judges of this Court on the interpretation to be placed on section 4 (4) of the Act. The principal question that arises for consideration is about the proper construction to be placed on the said section.

(3.) THE Rent Controller fixed the value of the land at Rs. 7 per sq. ft. It may be mentioned in this context that the Commissioner at the instance of the tenants had fixed the value at a slab date of Rs. 10 for the front portion, Rs. 9 for the middle portion and Rs. 5 for the rear portion. THE landlords filed Exhibits A-3 and A-6 which are sale deeds Exhibit A-7 which is the guideline fixed by the Tahsildar for the valuation of the property in the locality. THE Rent Controller fixed the value of the land at Rs. 7. However, the Appellate Authority fixed the value of the land at Rs. 10 per sq. ft. THE learned counsel for the tenants contended that the valuation fixed by the appellate Authority was unreasonable and he should have confirmed the value of the land at Rs. 7 per sq. ft. as fixed by the Rent Controller. THE learned counsel stated that Exhibits A-5 and A-6 could not have been relied upon as they were composite sale deeds for land and superstucture. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General for the landlords argued that the appellate authority ought to have fixed the value of the land at Rs. 12 per sq. ft. on the basis of Exhibit A-5 sale deed. According to the learned Advocate-General both Exhibits A-5 and A-6 contained separate valuation for the vacant portion of the land. We are not satisfied that the value of the land as fixed by the appellate Authority needs any revision. In fact, even according to the submission of the learned Advocate-General an area of 234 sq. ft. of vacant land in Exhibit A-6 has been valued only at Rs. 2,340 which works out only at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. ft. We therefore cannot countenance the claim of the learned Advocate-General for enhancement of the value of the land at Rs. 12 per sq. ft. Similarly, we are not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the tenants that the appellate authority should have adopted the belting system as followed by the Commissioner in his report. In fact, the question, does not arise at all in view of the fact that we have now excluded the area of 8680 sq. ft. in the rear portion. THE rest of the area is occupied by the theatre and therefore there is no scope for any valuation on the application of the belting system. We are therefore of the opinion that the valuation fixed for the land by the appellate authority does not call for any interference.