R HARI RAMESH Vs. T PRAMOD WILSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2000 rendered in R.C.A.No.815 of 1996 by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 31.1.1996 made in R.C.O.P.No.422 of 1994 by the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondents-landlords have filed the R.C.O.P.No.422 of 1994 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buidings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras praying to fix the fair rent at Rs.35,506/= per mensem from Rs.3,000/= p.m. for the petition premises which is a non-residential building situated in Indira Nagar, Chennai and the above R.C.O.P. was allowed thereby fixing the fair rent at Rs.17,834/=. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.815 of 1996 before the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras praying to set aside the fair and decretal order of the Rent Controller in the fixation of the said fair rent and the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant has come forward to file the above civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision such as that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is contrary to law and without jurisdiction; that the finding of the lower Appellate Court erred in confirming the order of the Trial Court fixing fair rent at Rs.17,834/= per mensem from the date of the petition; that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the petition premises situates in the important locality is erroneous; that the lower Appellate court having held that P.W.2 (Engineer for the respondents) has not followed the correct procedure in arriving at fair rent, ought to have rejected Ex.P1 in toto; that the lower Appellate Court erred in relying on Ex.P1 report of the respondents' engineer as he had not calculated fair rent as per Section 4 of the Act; that the lower Appellate Court ought to have accepted the evidence of R.W.1 and fixed fair rent; that the lower Appellate Court ought to have awarded disallowance of 30% of the cost of the building as provided under Section 4(5)(a) of the Act for the reasons stated by R.W.1 in Ex.R1; that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that Ex.P1 the report of the respondents' Engineer is correct as per law is erroneous; that the lower Appellate Court failed to note even as per Ex.P3 Sale Deed of the next house, the land value as on 15.7.1994 works out to Rs.8,32,877/= per ground and the respondents' are vendors in the said Sale Deed and the value given in the said document is binding on them as it was marked through P.W.1; that the lower Appellate Court failed to note Ex.R4 was a Sale Deed pertaining to a property in Latice Bridge Road and it ought to have fixed the land value of the petition premises at Rs.4 lakhs per ground; that the lower Appellate Court failed to note that Rs.11,458.99 per mensem is the fair rent arrived by R.W.1 the petitioner's engineer in Ex.R1 report; that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the decision reported in 1996(1) CTC 567 is not applicable to the facts of the case is erroneous; that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the judgment reported in 1974(1) SCC 424 is applicable to the facts of the case is erroneous. Hence, the present civil revision petition.

(3.) During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, besides having dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case as projected by parties, the evidence placed on record, the judgments rendered by both the authorities below, would also cite a decision of this Court delivered in C.SHANMUGHAM vs. N.S.K.CHOKKALINGAM PILLAI reported in 1992-I-L.W.315 wherein while dissecting Section 23 of the Act, adhering to the facts prevalent therein, a learned single Judge of this Court has held: