N S JAYARAMAN Vs. C A SUNKURAMIYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, which arises out of R.C.O.P. No. 177 of 1980, Rent Controller's Court (District Munsif), Madurai Town filed by the first respondent herein under S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act XVIII of 1960) as amended by Act XXIII of 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for fixation of the fair rent in respect of the building under the tenancy occupation of the petitioner and the second respondent. The building in question was initially let out to the father of the petitioner and the second respondent for the purpose of running a typewriting institute on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and after their father's death, they attorned the tenancy to the first respondent herein, who had, by then became the landlord of the building. Claiming that the building in the occupation of the petitioner and the second respondent would fall within Class I type having been built with cement mortar and brick and lime mortar employing teakwood and stating that the building which is about 30 years old is situate in a good locality commanding several facilities where the market value of the site is about Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. the first respondent prayed that the fair rent in respect of the building should be fixed at Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner and the second respondent resisted this application contending that at the inception of the tenancy, the rent was Rs. 20/-per month, which was subsequently gradually increased to Rs. 50/- p.m. and that was fair and reasonable rent. The building, according to them, was Class III building as the door and the door frames were stated to be made of country wood and the roofing was of Calicut tiles. The occupied area was stated to be only 467 sq. ft. in an eighty year old building. According to the petitioner and the second respondent, the staircase portion could not be treated as a portion leased out to them and should be excluded and they also contended that the site value was only Rs. 25/- per. sq. ft. and not Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. as claimed by the first respondent and that calculating fair rent on the aforesaid basis, no case was made out for increasing the rent paid by the petitioner and the second respondent. In an additional statement of objections filed by the petitioner and the second respondent, they put forth the objection that the rules framed under the Act are applicable and the method of calculation of fair rent adopted by the first respondent was also incorrect.

(2.) Before the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Madurai town, on behalf of the first respondent, Exs. A. 1 to A. 4 were marked and he was examined as P.W. 1 in addition to another P.W. 2, while, on behalf of the petitioner and the second respondent, Exs. B.1. to B.5. were filed and the petitioner alone was examined as R.W. 1. A Commissioner was also appointed to make local inspection and he submitted his reports marked as Exs. C. 1 and C. 2. On a consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the guidelines provided under S.4(4) and (5) of the Act would suffice to fix the fair rent in respect of the building, though the rules had been declared to be invalid earlier and that the depreciated cost of construction of the building inclusive of the staircase portion together with the market value of the site worked out to Rs. 33,762.45. Taking into account the purpose of the lease viz., the running of a typewriting institute, the return was worked out at 12% and the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 340/- p.m. Aggrieved by this, the first respondent as well as the petitioner and the second respondent preferred R.C.A. Nos. 112 of 1983 and 124 of 1983 respectively and both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. Before the appellate authority also, on behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the staircase portion has to be excluded in computing the fair rent of the building, as it would only be in the nature of amenity. After negativing this objection, the appellate authority, on the materials, concluded that the fixation of the fair rent in respect of the building at Rs. 340/-per month was just and proper and in that view, the appeals preferred by the first respondent in R.C.A. No. 112 of 1983 and the petitioner and the second respondent in R.C.A No. 124 of 1983 were dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner alone has preferred this Civil revision petition against the order in R.C.A. No. 124 of 1983.

(3.) In support of this revision petition, the principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities below ought to have excluded the staircase portion of the building though in the use and occupation of the petitioner and the second respondent, for purposes of computing the fair rent of the building under S.4 of the Act. Reliance in this connection was also placed by the learned counsel on the decisions in C. Ramchandran v. M. Kasim Khaleeli, (1965) 1 Mad LJ 78, S. Motilal v. E.A.Azeem (1974) 87 Mad LW (Jour. Sec.) 106 and Murugavel v. S. Ramalingam (C.R.P. No. 1006 of 1975, dated 23-4-1976).