Revision filed against an Appellate Court order fixing fair rent, challenging a reduction in land value. The High Court declined to re-appreciate evidence and dismissed the petition.
No costs.
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.
C.R.P (NPD) No.1670 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P (NPD) No.1670 of 2024
Represented by Partner A. Sathak Abdullah No.15, Ranganathan Street T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017
2.A.Sathak Abdullah
A.Gulam Hussain (deceased)
7.Mr.G.Azad .. Petitioners
vs.
M.Mohamed Gani ..Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decree and judgment dated 28.11.2023 passed in
1/7
C.R.P (NPD) No.1670 of 2024
R.C.A.No.97 of 2020 by the VIII Small Causes Court, at Chennai and modifying the fair and decreetal order dated 10.03.2020 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1124 of 2015 by the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Gavaskar
ORDER
This revision is preferred against the order passed in R.C.A.No.97
of 2020 on the file of VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai in partly
modifying the order of the learned XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.O.P.No.1124 of 2015.
The landlord wanted a fair rent of Rs.30,287/-. The relationship between the landlord and the tenant is not in dispute. The only dispute is in the land value. In all other aspects, the parties are ad-idem.
2/7
C.R.P (NPD) No.1670 of 2024
filed. This relates to the property situate at old No.43, New No.24//3, Golden Plaza, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. The demised premises is Old No.4/2, New No.15, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.
3/7
C.R.P (NPD) No.1670 of 2024
property and therefore, Courts below ought not to have reversed the order of the Rent Controller and enhanced the fair rent. He would plead that the value was fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs.4,00,00,000/-. This amount, by itself is excessive and hence, learned Judge should have allowed his appeal.
7.I have carefully analyzed the argument of either side.
more or less akin to the value that the Court fixes under the Land Acquisition Act. The argument of Mr.L.Gavasakar that since the property is situate in different survey numbers and therefore, the value should not be taken absolutely does not appeal to me. Each property has a different survey number. The Court has to see the proximity as well as the locational advantages while fixing the value. One is situated in Door No.24 and the other is situated in Door No.15. Both the properties i.e., the property covered under Ex.P3 sale deed as well as the demised premises are situated in the busy and expensive area of Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar. Ex.P3 property is only plots away from the demised premises. The fixation of land value should be based on the nearness of the property as well as the nearest value that the property would fetch on
4/7
C.R.P (NPD) No.1670 of 2024
the date of filing of the R.C.O.P. Ex.P3 is a sale deed dated 02.07.2015. The R.C.O.P is also of the year 2015. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Rent Controller had arbitrarily reduced a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the value under Ex.P3 of the property.
he should have let in some substantial evidence in the form of other sale deed to show that the value was only Rs.3 Crores. No records had been produced by the tenant.
5/7
C.R.P (NPD) No.1670 of 2024
12.04.2024
Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No gpa
To
6/7
C.R.P (NPD) No.1670 of 2024
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
gpa
C.R.P (NPD) No.1670 of 2024
12.04.2024
7/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority fixing fair rent via re-evaluation of evidence.
Whether the Court can re-appreciate evidence under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in a revision.
Whether the reduction in land value by the first appellate court was arbitrary considering the proximity of the comparable property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s.Idhayam Garments
A.Sathak Abdullah
M.Mohamed Gani
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
