M R EASWARAN Vs. C KEPPAIYA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised three objections to the fixation of fair rent by the Authorities below.

(2.) THE first is that a single petition for fixation of fair rent is not maintainable in view of the fact that the respondents have purchased different portions of the property under different sale deeds marked as Exs.A-9 to A-14. According to him, there should be six different petitions for fixation of fair rent with regard to each of the portions. I am unable to accept this contention. Admittedly the tenancy was a single one. He is the tenant of the entire building which bears only one door number and he is paying a sum of Rs.425 for the entire building. By arrangement he is paying to the father, who is the first respondent, and the other respondents arc only daughters of the first respondent. THE court below have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rukmani Ammal v. Izudeen, (1983)1 M.L.J. 186: A.I.R. 1983 Mad. 303. Learned counsel submits that the ruling does not apply as the landlord in that case was the same person with regard to two door numbers. That does not make any difference as long there is only a single lease. In this case, the tenancy is one and common and the building is the same. Hence, the view taken by the courts below that one petition is maintainable is correct.

(3.) RELIANCE is placed by learned counsel on the judgment of a Bench of this Court in Rayala Corporation (Madras) v. Syed Bawker and Co., Madras, (1957)1 M.L.J. 241. The case arose under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 25 of 1949. The language of Sec.4 at that time was entirely different. The section provided that "circumstances of the case" have to be taken into account by the Rent Controller before fixing the fair rent. Interpreting the expression "circumstances of the case", the Bench said that though there is no provision in the Act which specifically provides for taking into consideration the prevailing rent of the building in the locality which had been constructed subsequent to 1 st April, 1940, the expression "circumstances of the case" enables the Rent Controller to take into account the prevailing rates of rent of similar buildings at the time of the application especially when there is no reliable evidence as to the rental which prevailed in 1939-40. That ruling will have no application in this case as the language of Sec.4 of the present Act is entirely different. In fact the Legislature has deliberately introduced Sec.4 for the purpose of making it clear that only factors which are referred to in the section have to be taken into account by the Rent Controller for fixing fair rent.