The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair rent fixed at Rs.40,440/- per month by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority by an order dated 08.11.2013 in R.C.A.No.203 of 2012.
2.The revision petitioner herein who is the landlord had filed RCOP.NO.2580 of 2009 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 stating that the contractual rent is fixed at Rs.8500/- per month and the building is 7 years old having all the amenities and hence, prayed for fixing the fair rent at Rs.36,786/- per month. The learned Rent Controller after considering the oral and documentary evidence i.e., P.W.1, R.W.1, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 has fixed the monthly rent at Rs.36,750/-. Against the said order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the respondent/tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.197 of 2012 and the revision petitioner/landlord preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.203 of 2012 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Both the appeals were tried together and the fair rent was fixed at Rs.40,440/- per month. Against the said order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the revision petitioner/landlord.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would putforth his arguments in three folds.
1.When the learned Rent Controller had calculated 15% for the basic amenities such as Water, Drainage and Electricity, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority without assigning any reasons had reduced the same to 10% which is illegal.
2.The land value has been calculated as per Ex.R.3 which is the sale deed of the year 2006. But the property pertaining to that sale deed is situated in 17th Street, whereas the demised building is situated in 21st Street. Further, based on the sale deed of the year 2006, the land value was fixed at Rs.80 lakhs. But the landlord had filed Ex.P.3/Sale deed of the year 2008 which pertains to the property situated in 'K' Block which is just back side of the 'L' Block in which the demised building is located. As per Ex.P.3, the value per ground would come around Rs.1.60 Crores. But the same was not considered by both the Courts below. Hence, the learned counsel would contend that the land value has to be fixed on the basis of Ex.P.3.
3.When the landlord had sought for 5% towards Schedule-I amenities and the tenant had calculated 4% towards the same, the learned Rent Controller had granted 5% towards the Schedule-I amenities. However, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had failed to take into consideration of the same.
Thus, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed for enhancing the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.
4.Resisting the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant would putforth the following contentions.
1.'K' Block is situated 1= kms away from the demised building which is situated in 21st Street at 'L' Block and hence, Ex.P.3, copy of the sale deed pertaining to the year 2008 filed by the petitioner/landlord cannot be considered. However, the learned counsel would accede that Ex.R.3 pertains to the property situated in 17th Street and the copy of the plan has also been marked. The learned counsel would further contend that by applying the dictum laid down in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 283, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has given 15% increase per annum and fixed the land value at Rs.95 lakhs per ground. Hence, there is no necessity to reconsider the land value.
2.The learned counsel would further submit that when R.W.1 was in the witness box, he had deposed that there is no drainage facilities provided in the demised building and hence, on that basis, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had reduced the 15% granted by the learned Rent Controller towards the basic amenities to 10%.
3.As far as the amount calculated towards the Schedule-I amenities is concerned, the learned counsel would contend that the landlord had claimed a fair rent of Rs.36,786/- per month. However, the learned Rent Controller had granted Rs.36,750/- and the same was also enhanced by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority to Rs.40,440/-. In these circumstances, when the tenant had not challenged the enhanced rent, the landlord cannot claim for more rent than what he had originally claimed in the main petition.
Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
5.Considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the typed set of papers.
6.The first issue to be decided is whether the amount calculated at 10% for basic amenities by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is right?
The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration of the water, drainage and electricity facilities available in the demised building had calculated 15% towards the basic amenities. While fixing the same, the learned Rent Controller had held that the building is 7 years old and hence, the permission for construction would not have been granted if the building does not have these basic amenities and on that basis, he had fixed 15% towards the basic amenities. However, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority without assigning any reasons had reduced the same to 10% which is illegal. Furthermore, the plan itself shows that toilet facility is available in the building. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to increase the calculation for basic amenities from 10% to 15%.
7.The next issue to be decided by this Court is the land value pertaining to the demised building.
The learned Rent Controller had fixed the land value at Rs.80 lakhs per ground and calculated the apportioned land value at Rs.30,43,333/-. On the other hand, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 283, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar has determined 15% appreciation per annum for every subsequent year and fixed the land value at Rs.95 lakhs per ground. Even though the landlord had filed Ex.P.3/Sale deed of the year 2008 which pertains to the property situated in 'K' Block, where the value per ground is calculated at Rs.1.60 Crores, the same cannot be taken into consideration as 'K' Block is situated far away from the place where the demised building is situated. Hence, I am inclined to consider only Ex.R.3/Sale deed of the year 2006 filed by the tenant and on the basis of the price specified in Ex.R.3 and after calculating 15% appreciation per annum fix the land value at Rs.95 lakhs per ground. Thus, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had rightly calculated the apportioned land value at Rs.36,13,958/- and the same does not warrant interference by this Court.
8.Now this Court has to consider the calculation for Schedule-I amenities.
Though the learned Rent Controller had calculated 5% towards the Schedule-I amenities, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had failed to add any amount towards the Schedule-I amenities. However, this Court considering the nature of the demisesd premises is inclined to add 5% towards the Schedule I amenities.
9.In view of the above stated position, the final calculation is made as follows:
Calculations RCC rood Ground floor 986 @ 429/ per sq.ft Rs.4,22,994/-
AC sheet roof extent 49 sq.ft at Rs.245/ per sq.ft Rs.12,005/-
Cantilevered slab extent share 46.66 sq.ft ar Rs.160/ per sq.ft Rs.7,465/-
Total Rs.4,42,464/-
Basic Amenities @ 15% Rs.66,369/-
Total Rs.5,08,833/-
Depreciation at 1% for 10 years Rs.4,59,985/-
Land Value Apportioned site area land value Rs.95,00,000/2400 = 3958.33 * 913 = 36,13,958/-
Rs.36,13,958/-
Depreciated cost of land and building Rs.40,73,943/-
Add 5% for Schedule I amenities Rs.2,03,697 Total Rs.42,77,640/-
10.Thus, the fair rent @ 12% per year for the non-residential building is arrived at Rs.42,776/- per month and rounded off to Rs.42,775/- per month.
11.In fine,
(a) The present Civil Revision Petition stand allowed and the fair rent is fixed at Rs.42,775/- per month instead of Rs.40,540/- per month, from the date of filing of the petition.
(b) Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
09.01.2017 pgp Index:Yes/No R.MALA, J.
pgp Pre-Delivery order made in C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2014 Dated : 09.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in