Single judge of Madras High Court allowed no order as to costs. Rejected the landlord's petition to examine an additional engineer and produce evidence regarding market value, dismissing the civil revision petitions filed against the Rent Control Appellate Authority's order.
dismissed all civil revision petitions; no order as to costs granted
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
CRP.NPD.No.4753 of 2015
Abdul Jawad ..Petitioner Vs. M.A.Jacob Furnishing, Represented by its Proprietor M.A.Jacob, No.35 (Old.No.47/22) Evening Bazaar, Park Town, Chennai- 600 003 ..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 against the common judgment in RCA.No.5 and 115 of 2004 and the decree dated 29.04.2014 made in RCA.No.5 of 2004 modifying the fair and decreetal order dated 17.12.2003 passed in RCOP.No.358 of 2002 by
the learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kamalanathan
For Respondent : Mr.Thomas Jacob
CRP.NPD.No.4754 of 2015
Abdul Jawad
..Petitioner
1/8
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
Vs.
M.A.Jacob Furnishing, Represented by its Proprietor M.A.Jacob, No.35 (Old.No.47/22) Evening Bazaar, Park Town, Chennai- 600 003
..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 against the common judgment and decree dated 29.04.2014 in MP.No.338 and 339 of 2012 in RCA.No.5 of 2004 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kamalanathan For Respondent : Mr.Thomas Jacob CRP.NPD.No.4755 of 2015 Abdul Jawad ..Petitioner Vs.
M.A.Jacob Furnishing, Represented by its Proprietor M.A.Jacob, No.35 (Old.No.47/22) Evening Bazaar, Park Town, Chennai- 600 003 ..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 against the common
2/8
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
judgment and decree dated 29.04.2014 in MP.No.338 and 339 of 2012 in RCA.No.5 of 2004 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kamalanathan
For Respondent : Mr.Thomas Jacob
COMMON ORDER
This Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of common judgment in RCA.No.5 and 115 of 2004 and the decree dated 29.04.2014
made in RCA.No.5 of 2004 modifying the fair and decreetal order dated 17.12.2003 passed in RCOP.No.358 of 2002 by the learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai; common judgment and decree dated 29.04.2014 in MP.No.338 and 339 of 2012 in RCA.No.5 of 2004 passed by
the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai; and common judgment and decree dated 29.04.2014 in MP.No.338 and 339 of 2012 in RCA.No.5 of 2004 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court at
Chennai
and the respondent is the tenant hereinafter called as tenant. The petitioner filed petition for fixation of fair rent for the petition premises. 3/8
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
The learned Rent Controller fixed monthly rent for the petition premises at Rs.8842/-. Aggrieved by the same, both landlord as well as the tenant filed appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority for enhancement of fair rent as well as setting aside the order fixing fair rent. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal
filed by the landlord for enhancement of fair rent and allowed the appeal filed by the tenant against the fixation of fair rent on the ground that the petition premises is a vacant land and as such Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act would not apply and only City Tenants Protection Act can apply. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred civil revision petition in CRP.Nos.3814 of 2008 and 1720 of 2009 before this Court. This Court by common order dated 10.06.2011 allowed both the civil revision petitions and ruled out as follows:
"34.Since the appellate authority has disposed of the
appeals holding that the Rent Control Act is not applicable and has not gone into the merits of other contentions put forth on either side, namely as to whether the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller is correct or not, the matter has to be remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh disposal on merits.
35.Accordingly, the above CRP's are allowed setting
4/8
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
aside the common order of the appellate authority and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the question of fair rent payable for the petition premises after giving an opportunity to both the sides."
Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the landlord for enhancement of fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller in RCA.No.5 of 2004. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the tenant challenging fixation of fair rent and modified the fair rent as Rs.3750/-
per month thereby reduced the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller from Rs.8842/-. While pending the appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord filed petition to examine his engineer as PW3 and also seeking permission to produce additional evidence namely sale deed dated 17.03.2005 to assess the market value of the petition premises. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority passed common order in MP.Nos.338 and 339 of 2012 as well as RCA.Nos.5 & 115 of 2004 thereby dismissing both the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred CRP.No.4754 and 4755 of 2015.
Therefore, the landlord failed to challenge the order passed by the
5/8
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
learned Rent Control Appellate Authority filed by the tenant challenging the fixation of fair rent and thereby modified the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller.
concerned, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority rejected the said request made by the landlord for the reason that the sale deed which is to be marked of the year 2005 whereas petition for fair rent filed in the year 2002. Therefore it cannot reflect the true position of the market value for the year 2002. In respect of examining an engineer as PW3 on the side of the landlord, the landlord already examined his
engineer as PW2. Therefore, there is no need to examine another engineer. Therefore, this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in respect of dismissing the petition sought for examining PW2 as well as to produce
additional evidence.
of enhancement of fair rent petition is concerned, the tenant already
6/8
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
filed appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority challenging fixation of fair rent, in which the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority reduced the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller from Rs.8842/- to Rs.3750/- against which, no civil revision petition is filed.
08.02.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
7/8
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
1.The learned VII Judge,
Small Causes Court at Chennai
2.The learned XVI Judge,
Small Causes Court at Chennai.
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
8/8
CRP.NPD.Nos.4753 to 4755 of 2015
08.02.2021
9/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the landlord's petition to examine an engineer and produce additional evidence.
Whether a civil revision petition can be maintained against an appeal allowed by the Appellate Authority challenging the fair rent fixation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Jawad
M.A.Jacob Furnishing
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
