H C LODHA Vs. C RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are six revisions arising under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. These revisions were heard by learned single Judge of this Court. In C.R.Ps. 382, 383 and 4305 of 1981, Sengottuvelan, J. felt a difficulty with regard to arriving at the market value of the site, in which the building is constructed for determining the fair rent for the building. The learned Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench. The Division Bench which heard the said three revisions on reference, found that of the pronouncements of two learned single Judges of this Court, one of Ratnam, J. in Chelladurai v. Paramanand Jindal, (1980) 2 Mad LJ 441, and the other of Sathiadev, J. in Shamsunnissa Begum v. C.K. Nanjiah, (1980) 2 Mad LJ 9, taking different views a Division Bench in Kaliammal v. Athi V. Ramachandran, (1983) 2 Mad LJ 252, accepted the view of Sathiadev, J. in Shamsunnissa Begum v. C.K. Nanjiah, (1980) 2 Mad LJ 9, Overruling the view of Ratnam, J. in Chelladurai v. Paramanand Jindal, (1980) 2 Mad LJ 441, and opining that the decision of the said Bench requires reconsideration, referred the matter to a Full Bench. The order of reference dated 10-11-1983, reads as follows :-

(2.) Yet, another question arises for consideration in this batch of civil revision petitions. Whatever be the interpretation of the proviso to S.4(4) of the Act, that will have to be applied where the building is occupied by different tenants floorwise. Balasubrahmanyan, J. in Kores India Ltd. v. Dinesh Motilal, (1982) 2 Mad LJ 124, held that for each of the floors, the same construction will have to be applied and it could not be further sub-divided on the basis that the occupation was by different tenants of different floors of the building. This construction of Balasubrahmanyan, J. was not accepted by Sengottuvelan, J. and that is how the matter was referred to us. Since we are referring the other question which arises for consideration to be considered by a Full Bench, we think it desirable that this question is also considered by the Full Bench.

(3.) According, we place the entire matter for consideration by a Full Bench. The papers may be placed before my Lord, the Chief Justice, for being posted before a Full Bench." That is how the said three revisions are before us. We will presently refer to the scope and amplitude of the question that require consideration by us pursuant to the order of reference. C.R.P. 1704 and 1705 of 1982 and C.R.P. 3878 of 1983 were taken up by K.M. Natarajan, J. and the learned Judge, facing the same questions that stood referred in C.R.Ps. 382, 383 and 4305 of 1981, without going into the other points in these three revisions also referred the matters to the Full Bench to be taken up along with the earlier revision and they are now before us. 2. The controversy in these matters relates to the arriving at the market value of the site in which the building is constructed, as per the first proviso to sub-sec. (4) of S.4 of the Act, which proviso reads as follows-