S. ATTENDROOLOO GHETTYS CHARITIES BY ITS PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEES, S. VENKATARANGAM AND ORS. Vs. SADHANA AUSHADALAYA BY ITS PROPRIETOR NARESH CHANDRA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords in the former case and the landlady in the latter case are the petitioners, being dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act, in the matter of the fixation of fair rent for the portions in the occupation of their respective tenants, have come up to this Court to revise the order of the appellate authority.

(2.) IN C.R.P. No. 551 of 1965, the petitioners are the Board of Trustees in management of S. Attendrooloo Chetti's Charities. The tenant is Sadhana Aushadhalaya, occupying the ground floor of premises No. 17 -A, Broadway, Madras. The landlord filed an application under Section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent for the portion in its occupation which consists of an office hall and a bathroom -cum -dressing room with other amenities therein. The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 300. The appeal by the landlords was dismissed by the appellate authority. The landlords having come up in revision, have rested their contentions on the following two grounds : (1) the apportionment of the value of the site between the first and the second floors of the building is not strictly in accordance with law and (2) the ten per cent provided by the Courts below as and towards amenities is too low and they are entitled to the maximum of 25 per cent.

(3.) IT may be noted that the petitioners before me did raise in the grounds of revision many other contentions. But they are purely factual in nature and findings of fact having been rendered by the Courts below on such other points raised in the grounds of revision. I am unable to interfere with the same. In fact, they were not even seriously pressed before me. I am therefore considering the most important question as to whether the apportionment of the value of the site on which the entirety of the building stands between the two floors of the building is a principle which is correct. In C.R.P. No. 551 of 1965 Sri P. Venkatasawami, learned Counsel for the petitioners, also stressed before me that the ten per cent provided for as and towards amenities as against the maximum statutory percentage of 25 is inequitable and has to be reconsidered.