Dismissed

Y. Doraisamy v. M/S.Sha Uthamachand Devichandji

Madras HC3 Apr 2024CRP/171/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross civil revision petitions by landlord and tenant against appellate order fixing fair rent of non-residential premises. The only dispute was land value; the court upheld preference for the nearer comparable sale document post-dating the guideline value revision and confirmed the appellate value of Rs.3,31,46,285 per ground. Both revisions dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Y. Doraisamy Vs M/S.Sha Uthamachand Devichandji — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.171 of 2022 and 1504 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.171 of 2022 and 1504 of 2024

¶7

C.R.P.(NPD)No.171 of 2022 :

Y.Doraisamy

.. Petitioner

Vs.

M/s.Sha Uthamchand Devichandji, Represented by its Proprietor, Rakesh, No.75/155, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai – 600 079 .. Respondent

¶12

Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the decree and judgment of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai, dated 14.08.2019 in R.C.A.No.242 of 2016 modifying the order and decree of the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai in R.C.O.P.No.1446 of 2013, dated 04.01.2016 and refix the fair rent.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Sundar

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.V.Sivakumar for Mr.P.B.Ramanujam

¶15

Page No 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.171 of 2022 and 1504 of 2024

¶17

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1504 of 2024 :

¶18

M/s.Sha Uthamchand Devichandji, Represented by its Proprietor, Rakesh, No.75/155, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai – 600 079 .. Petitioner

¶19

Vs.

¶20

Y.Doraisamy .. Respondent

¶21

Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the judgment and decree in R.C.A.No.242 of 2016 dated 14.08.2019 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai modifying the order and decreetal order in R.C.O.P.No.1446 of 2013 dated 04.01.2016 on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court at Chennai.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sivakumar for Mr.P.B.Ramanujam

¶23

For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Sundar

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the application filed for

¶26

the fixation of fair rent by the landlord for the premises situated at Old No.75, New No.155, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai – 600 079.

¶27

Page No 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.171 of 2022 and 1504 of 2024

¶29

The purpose of tenancy is non-residential. There is no dispute insofar as the type of the building, the depreciation of the building, the age of building, plinth area, the cost of construction, and land possession are concerned. The only dispute relates to the value of the land.

¶30

The Court had two documents filed by the landlord and the tenant to access the land value. The landlord relied upon the document under Ex.P3 relating to a property situated at New D.No.193, Govindappa Naicken Street. The tenant relied upon the document under Ex.R6 relating to the property situated at New No.103, Govindappa Naicken Street.

¶31

Both the Courts below have preferred to use the document under Ex.P3 as the property dealt under the said document was closer to the petition schedule mentioned property. The value on that basis has been taken to be a sum of Rs.3,31,46,285/- per ground. This is because the Government of Tamil Nadu had revised the guideline value from 01.04.2012 and the document under Ex.P3 is made after the cut off date, whereas, the document under Ex.R6 was executed before the cut off date. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Courts below

¶32

Page No 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.171 of 2022 and 1504 of 2024

¶34

in choosing Ex.P3 over Ex.R6 as the said property is close to the demised premises.

¶35

Apart from that, more or less the same principles that have been applied for the fixation of value in the land acquisition proceedings have to be applied for the fixation of fair rent under the Rent Control Act. The property under Ex.P3 being closer, the Courts below have rightly chosen that value.

¶36

Insofar as C.R.P.(NPD)No.171 of 2022 is concerned, the learned Rent Controller had taken into account the appreciation for three years, namely, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Since he pronounced the judgment in the year 2016, he was of the opinion that the said calculation would be an appropriate value to be taken for the property.

¶37

It is a settled position of law that the value that shall be taken into

¶38

account for assessing the land value is the value of the property on the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition. The Rent Control Original Petition had been filed on 12.08.2013 and therefore, the Rent Controller had

¶39

Page No 4 of 6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.171 of 2022 and 1504 of 2024

¶42

erred in adding 15% appreciation for the years, namely, 2014 and 2015 in

¶43

his order. This has been rectified by the lower Appellate Court on appeal and it has arrived at a value of Rs.3,31,46,285/-. I do not find any error in the same.

¶44

Therefore, the value that has been fixed by the lower Appellate

¶45

Court is confirmed. The order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.242 of 2016 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai in modifying the order of XIII Court of Small Causes at Chennai in R.C.O.P.No.1446 of 2013 dated 04.01.2016 stands confirmed.

¶46

Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No

costs.

03.04.2024 (2/3)

mkn2

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶51

Page No 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.171 of 2022 and 1504 of 2024

¶53

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶54

mkn2

¶55

¶56

1.The learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai

¶57

2.The XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai

¶58

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.171 of 2022 and 1504 of 2024

¶59

03.04.2024 (2/3)

¶60

Page No 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Y. Doraisamy v. M/S.Sha Uthamachand Devichandji

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Y. Doraisamy v. M/S.Sha Uthamachand Devichandji

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marimuthu Vs Ravi @ Ravichandran

V.Balakrishna Naidu Vs G.v.Subramani

Titus Samuel Vs Sophia Samuel

K. Anjana Vs B. Varun

Go.Neelahram Vs Thampi Unnikrishnan

Mahalakshmi Traders Vs Y.Doraisamy