M RADHAKRISHNA RAO Vs. A B AHMED BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE matters arise out of two petitions filed by the landlord, who is the petitioner in CR.P.Nos.1608 and 1625 of 1985, for fixing of fair rent under Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973. One of the petitions, viz., R.C.O.P.No.3115 of 1982 relates to the two flats in the ground floor of Door No.631, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Tondiarpet, Madras, occupied by A.B.Ahmed Basha, who is the respondent in C.R.P.No.1608 of 1985 and petitioner in C.R.P.No.478 and 479 of 1988. The other petition, viz., R.C.O.P.No.3116 of 1982 relates to two flats in the first floor of the same building occupied by Manoharlal Sablok, respondent in C.R.P.No.1625 of 1985. C.R.P.No.1608 of 1985, 478 of 1988 and 479 of 1988 form one group as they pertain to one tenant viz., Ahmed Basha, occupying two flats in the ground floor. C.R.P.No.1625 of 1985 and C.M.P.No.14705 of 1991 go to get her and they will be dealt with as a separate group.

(2.) AHMED Basha was paying a rent of Rs.265 per mensem under the contract of tenancy. In the petition for fixation of fair rent, the landlord claimed Rs.1,931 per mensem. The Rent Controller fixed Rs.635 per mensem as fair rent by order dated 26.3.1983. There were two appeals, one by the landlord and another by the tenant, numbered as R.C.A.Nos.1213 of 1983 and 56 of 1984 respectively. They were disposed of by order dated 19.11.1984 by the appellate authority, who fixed the fair rent at Rs.890 per mensem.

(3.) THE section has been the subject of judicial interpretation in this Court. In A.C.Charities v. Mls.S.Aushadhalaya, (1968)2 M.L.J. 406, Ramaprasada Rao, J. considered the meaning of the word "site" with reference to a building having more than one floor. He held that in the case of such buildings, the principle ought to be one of apportionment in accordance with the number of storeys. In so far as the ground floor is concerned, he interpreted the word "site" as it is ordinarily understood as that on which the ground floor stands. With reference to the first floor, second floor or the nth floors, he held that it would mean that portion of the building on which the respective flat or storey was built upon or imposed. But, the learned Judge proceeded to observe as follows: "Having thus far considered as the meaning of the word "site", the question still remains as to how best to implement the express words of the statute provided for in Sec.4(2)(b)(ii) or Sec,4(3)(b)(ii) of the Act. THE Act makes it obligatory that to arrive at the total cost, the market value of that portion of the site on which the residential or non-residential building is constructed, has to be taken into consideration. THErefore, if a building consists of more than one storey, how is the market value of that portion of the site in each case to be evaluated? In Namasivaya Chettiar v. Appuswamy Iyer, C.R.P.No.486 of 1964, Anantanarayanan, J. (as he then was) observed as follows: ""But since, for the purpose of. the Act, the actual plinth area upon which the construction concerned stands, has to be taken into account and a strict interpretation of this will- mean that the plinth area for the first floor, as distinguished from the ground floor, must be assessed as "nil" value, it appears to me that some such expediency as that actually adopted in the case is inevitable." "THE expediency referred to by the learned Judge is the formula adopted by the Court below which is to the following effect; the fair rent is sought to be fixed with reference to the first floor of the building, and for purpose of computation of such fair rent, the court below has adopted a formula of taking the plinth area of the first floor as half the actual area upon which the construction was erected. In Vasantha Watch Co. v. Saraswathi Time Equipment, C.RP.No.583 of 1964, the same rule was adopted by the learned Judge. In this case also, the following observations are apposite: "I am unable to hold that the courts below were in error in taking the area of the floor for computation purposes as half of the plinth area; otherwise, and if the letter of the rules has to be adhered to, there would be no floor area at all for the simple reason that this is the first floor of the building, and not the ground floor." "I respectfully agree with the principles adopted by the learned Judge. I am also of the view that in the case of buildings having more than one floor the principle ought to be one of apportionment in accordance with the number of storeys. If there are two storeys, the market value of the land for the first floor will be half. If there are more than two storeys, it will be proportionately distributed in accordance with the number of storeys in the building."