R MANICKAM Vs. JAN MOHAMED SAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act No,23 of 1973 and Act No.1 of 1980, against the order dated 22.2.2006 in RCA.No,27 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthagamandalam in so far as it confirms the order dated 21.06.2005 in RCOP.No.40 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller, Uthagamandalam.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the Judgment in RCA.No,27 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthgamandalam (Rent Control Appellate Authority), which had arisen out of the order in RCOP.No,40 of 2002 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Uthagamandalam. The landlord had filed the RCOP.No,40 of 2002 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act for fixing a fair rent to the petition scheduled premises at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month. The respondent had filed his counter before the learned Rent Controller contending that the petition scheduled premisses is in dilapidated condition and is a very old one and will not fetch more than current rent of Rs.300/- per month.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Rent Controller, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who had filed Ex.C.1-report with the help of a qualified Engineer. BEFORE the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining the Advocate Commissioner as P.W. 2. On the side of the respondent R.W.1 was examined. Except Ex.C.1-Advocate Commissioner's report, no other document was marked on either side before the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) A perusal of Ex.C.1-Advocate Commissioner's report will go to show that the petition scheduled premises consists of ground floor in R.S.No.1747/1 at Garden Road, Nelgiris and it was with a G-I sheet roof with iron angles and the superstructure is also made up of G-I Sheet and the flooring is a concrete furnished with ceramic tiles. Taking into consideration the age of the building which is 50 years, the learned Advocate Commissioner with the help of a qualified Engineer has fixed the depreciation value as 1%. Taking into consideration the locality in which the petition scheduled premises is situated the value of the land was fixed by the learned Advocate Commissioner in Ex.C.1 as Rs.3,96,060/- on the basis of the guideline value for the site available in the Joint Sub-Registrar's Office, Uthagamandalam. On appeal, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has increased the depreciation value from 1% to 2% taking into consideration the age and condition of the building and reduced the rent from Rs.4,740/- fixed by the learned Rent Controller to Rs.4,450/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on 1990(4) SCC 493 (Harish Chandra and another Vs. Mohd.Ismail and others) would contend that if the superstructure is of tin sheet it cannot be construed as the "building" defined under the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The facts of the said ratio are that the tenants therein had taken on lease a shop premises from the landlords put up with tin shed raising a wall on the respondents' building. The land admittedly belonged to the respondents/landlords and the tin shed was put up by the tenants therein. The Rent Control Petition was filed under the provisions of the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. While considering whether the suit premisses in that case will squarely come under the definition of Building under the UP Rent Act, it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court at paragraph 4 as follows:-