M. JAYACHANDRAN Vs. K. ALAMELU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO contentions are urged by learned counsel for the petitioner in these matters. One, in front of each tenament, there is a vacant space and the market value thereof should be taken into consideration for fixing the fair rent. He places reliance on M/s. Koras India Ltd. v. Dinesh Mothilal, 1982(II) MLJ 124. That was a case, in which the question was whether the market value of the site can be divided into different portions in proportion to the number of floors in the building, if the tenants are different, each occupying a different floor. That ruling will have no application in this case.

(2.) MY attention is drawn to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Lodha v. Ranganthan, 1989(1) MLJ 213. The Full Bench referred to the judgment in Koras India Ltd. case (supra) and observed that it is a matter, in which each case has to be decided on its own facts. The Full Bench pointed out that there cannot be any rigid rule in this matter. However, the Full Bench prescribed the relative test for deciding the question. It is the rule that in each case, the Court has to find out what exactly is the subject matter of demise. If the land appurtenant to the building is not the subject matter of the demise, then the market value thereof cannot be taken into consideration.

(3.) HOWEVER , learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Appellate Authority is in error in adding a sum of Rs. 397/- while calculating the cost of construction, inclusive of the market value of the site for the purpose of fixing the fair rent, on the ground that the same represents the value of the user of the passage. No doubt, the Appellate Authority has not given any reason for fixing the amount at Rs. 397/-. For what one knows, it may be much more than that amount. But, it is quite likely that the amount has been fixed by the Appellate Authority in order to round off the total cost of construction, inclusive of the market value of the site. Whatever it may be, I do not think it a fit matter to be interfered with in revision as the respondents are to pay some amount for using the open space in front of the tenements though they are not used as appurtenant to their respective tenements. Thus, the addition of Rs. 397/- to the total cost of construction does not warrant interference.