KISHINCHAND CHELLARAMS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. G VARADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 1125 of 1993, 2023 of 1994 and 2657 of 1997 are directed against the common judgment dated 14.12.92 made in R.C.A. Nos. 986 of 1990 and 1137 of 1990 by the Court of Rent Control Appellate Authority and XI Judge, Small Causes, Madras, thereby dismissing the R.C.A. No. 986 of 1990 preferred by the respondent/tenant and partly allowing the other R.C.A. 1137 of 1990 preferred by the petitioner/landlord as against the fair and decretal order dated 3.9.1990 made in R.C.O.P. No. 1208 of 1983 by the Rent Controller and XI Judge, Court of Small Causes Madias, thereby fixing the fair rent under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short TNBLRC Act) filed by the landlord.

(2.) IN fact, the landlord filed the R.C.O.P. No. 1208 of 1983 under Section 4 of the TNBLRC Act, thereby praying for the fixation of the fair rent for the non-residential premises under the tenancy of the respondent bearing D. No. 831 (new) and 181 (old), Mount Road (Anna Salai), Madras-2, at Rs. 31,075/- per month on grounds that the petitioner/landlord is the sole and absolute owner of theis statutory tenant of the said building on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,800/-; that the building is fully built up ground floor with Madras terrace, which is about 100 years old, the first floor is of 4000 sq.ft. with concrete roof constructed in 1969 and the second floor is of about 1000 sq.ft. with asbestos roof put up 8 years back; that the premises has a strategic view from the point of business and arrests the attention of the customers, facing foremost the city, flanked by the Wallaja Road and Blackers Road, situated in the centre of Madras city wherein the business, commercial and industrial activities arc the highest and where every inch of space is greatly in demand; that there is no locality in the combined States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala which could stand comparison in the matter of around importance and business potential encircled with leading cinema houses, hotels, markets, bazaars, public and private offices, city and mofussil bus routes and all the place of public utility and urban importance; that the premises is also abound with all internal amenities like water, electricity and mosaic floor, motor and pumpsets, etc.

(3.) THE further averments of the respondents are that it is totally false to claim that the land value of the said area is Rs. 7,50,000/- and the petitioner's land value is at Rs. 9,60,000/- per ground. THE' market value of the land in the area is only Rs. 1,50,000/- per ground; that the P.W.D. rates are only applicable in arriving at the cost of construction, which is mandatory and that as per the claim of the petitioner, the cost of construction is Rs. 140/- per sq.ft. is untenable and false and it has no application to fix the fair rent under the Act; that P.W.D. rates and market rates are the same; that the respondents have arrived at the fair rent for the premises engaging Chartered Engineers and according to him the fair rent is Rs. 4,562.80 per month and would offer reasons for arriving at such conclusion specifying the superstructure for the ground floor, type of construction as Type-II for the first floor and for the second floor; basic amenties; age of the floors, the built up area, the cost of construction and the present value of the building would be arrived at Rs. 1,94,680/-and would thus justify the fair rent arrived at by the respondents at Rs. 4,562-80 ps. and would end up their statement ultimately branding the claim of the petitioner that the fair rent is Rs. 31,075/- as false and highly excess.