Dismissed

T.Poornam, v. Rm.Alagammai

Madras HC5 Mar 2014CRP(MD)/853/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the fair rent order under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Court held that no interference was necessary despite arguments regarding the methodology and the Engineer's report.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Judgment and Decree of Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed.

T.Poornam, Vs Rm.Alagammai — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 05.03.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.853 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶7

T.Poornam .. Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent/Tenant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Rm.Alagammai .. Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner/Landlord

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Decree and Judgment made in R.C.A.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakkottai, dated 03.10.2012 confirming the fair and decreetal order made in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the learned Rent Controller cum Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikudi, dated 21.02.2011.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Subramanian

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Judgment and Decree dated 03.10.2012 and made in R.C.A.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, confirming the Fair and Decreetal order, dated 21.02.2011 and made in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller cum Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikudi have been challenged in this memorandum of Civil Revision.

¶14

Heard Mr.R.Karunanidhi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.T.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the grounds of memorandum of this Civil Revision Petition including the Judgment and Decree of the the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the Fair and Decreetal order passed by the learned Rent Controller.

¶15

It is revealed from the records that the respondent herein has filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2005 as against the revision petitioner on the file of the learned Rent Controller viz., (the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikudi) under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 to fix the fair https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rent for the schedule mentioned property. This petition was vigorously contested by the revision petitioner being the tenant and after hearing both sides, the learned Rent Controller viz., the learned Principal

¶16

¶17

District Munsif, Karaikudi has proceeded to allow the petition on 21.02.2011 fixing the fair rent at Rs.2,940/- in respect of the schedule mentioned property.

¶18

Impugning the order, dated 21.02.2011, the revision petitioner being the tenant has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.

¶19

The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides, has proceeded to dismiss the appeal, after confirming the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller viz., the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikudi. Having been not satisfied with the Judgment and Decree of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, now the tenant being the revision petitioner has approached this Court with this memorandum of civil revision.

¶20

When the matter is taken up for hearing Mr.R.Karunanidhi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant has adverted to that the learned Rent Controller based on the Engineer's report had proceeded to fix the fair rent which is in total negotiation of the Principles of natural Justice on the simple ground that he could not be found himself as an expert to offer his opinion in respect of the market value of the site.

¶21

It is also pertinent to note here that the Engineer's report has been marked as Ex.C.1 and the valuation certificate issued by the Engineer has been marked as Ex.C.3. Both the above said documents have been assailed by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner saying that no credence could be given by the learned Rent Controller to the above said documents under Exs.C.1 & C.3 to fix the fair rent of the building.

¶22

It may also be relevant to note here that one more contention was putforth on behalf of the revision petitioner saying that the learned Rent Controller ought to have examined the PWD Engineer as a witness, who had arrived the guideline value as the site value and without following the guidelines provided under Section 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the conclusion with regard to fixing the fair rent by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Rent Controller Appellate Authority is fatal in this case.

¶23

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also argued that already the revision petitioner being the tenant had filed a suit in O.S.No.45 of 2005 as against the respondent/landlord seeking the relief of bare injunction and only by way of counter blast to that suit, the respondent/landlord had chosen to file the petition in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2005 to fix the fair rent.

¶24

Further, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority at Rs.2,940/- was on the higher side and therefore it ought to be revised

¶25

¶26

by this Court by way of revision.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr.T.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that after making of effective calculation based on the market value of the property, the learned Rent Controller had arrived at the fair rent at Rs.2,940/which has been confirmed in the appeal by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority which did not require any interference of this Court.

¶28

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides and having regard to the related facts and circumstances of the case and on careful appreciation of the Judgment and Decree of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority which has been challenged in this revision, this Court is of the confirmed view that the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority does not require any interference of this Court.

¶29

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Judgment and Decree dated 03.10.2012 and made in R.C.A.No.9 of 2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai are confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶32

/True Copy/

¶33

Sub – Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

1.The Rent Controller cum Principal District Munsif, Karaikudi.

¶36

2.The Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.

¶37

- 1 CC to Mr.T.R.Subramanian, Advocate in Sr.no.13962

¶38

- 1 CC to Mr.R.Karunanidhi, Advocate in Sr.No.14233

¶39

ps C.R.P(MD)No.853 of 2013 05.03.2014

¶40

gdr 02.04.2014 3p/5C

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.Poornam, v. Rm.Alagammai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Poornam, v. Rm.Alagammai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanam Vs Sundaram Finance Ltd.

J.Reka Vs M.Natarajan

Raj Kumar Vs Mrs.Mary Saroja

Syed Wali Peeran Vs Syeda Sabiha Fatima

Santhana Gopalakrishnan @ Vs Viji @ Vijipriya

Syed Ali, Vs Chellaammal