Vs.
C.Amarnath : Respondent in both CRPs respondent / petitioner / landlord Prayer in CRP(MD).No.940 of 2012: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 against the order and decreetal order dated 02.12.2006 made in RCOP.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif Court, Thiruchirappalli confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge in RCA.No.16 of 2007 by its Judgment and decree dated 08.04.2011.
Prayer in CRP(MD).No.704 of 2014: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirappalli, dated 23.08.2013 made in RCA.No.1 of 2012 confirming the order and decreetal order dated 17.12.2011 made in RCOP.No.13 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif, Thiruchirappalli.
The Civil Revision Petition in CRP(MD).No.940 of 2012 is filed against the order and decreetal order dated 02.12.2006 made in RCOP.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif Court, Thiruchirappalli confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge in RCA.No.16 of 2007 by its Judgment and decree dated 08.04.2011.
The Civil Revision Petition in CRP(MD).No. 704 of 2014 is filed against the against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirappalli, dated 23.08.2013 made in RCA.No.1 of 2012 confirming the order and decreetal order dated 17.12.2011 made in RCOP.No.13 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller/ Principal District Munsif, Thiruchirappalli.
2. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent landlord filed RCOP.No.9 / 2003 for fixation of fair rent. According to the respondent, the petition premises is in a busy commercial area. The petitioner is paying only Rs.300/- per month. He is carrying on Cycle business, without permission of the respondent. He is also running a petty vegetable shop. The petition premises will fetch rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner denied that petition premises is in commercial area. The petitioner submitted that there is no amenity in the petition premises and petitioner is not using the petition premises for different purpose for which it was let out. From the beginning the petitioner is carrying on Cycle business as well as vegetable business.
3. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent examined three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and marked three documents as Exs.X1 to X3. The petitioner did not examine any witness marked one document as Ex.B1, Commissioner's report, plan were marked as Exs.C1 to C4. The learned Rent Controller considering all the averments in the petition and counter and oral and documentary evidence, taking into account vacant land appurtenant to the petition premises and also considering the guideline value as well as market value, fixed fair rent at Rs.1,625/-. Against that the petitioner filed RCA.No.16 of 2007 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruchirappalli. The learned Appellate Authority considering all the materials on record and order of the learned Rent Controller dismissed the RCA confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 08.04.2011.
4. Against the above said order dated 08.04.2011, CRP(MD).No.940 of 2012 has been filed.
5. The respondent, landlord also filed RCOP.No.13 of 2013 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Trichy, for eviction on the ground of wilful default and user for other purpose. According to the respondent, the petitioner has taken the premises for running the cycle shop, but, he has used that shop for sale of vegetables with a petty shop. Further, the building is very old and in a dilapidated condition and hence, the respondent is taking steps for demolition and reconstruction of the said building. Before the Rent Controller respondent was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. Petitioner was examined as RW.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B6. Commissioner's sketch and report were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The learned Rent Controller has passed an order directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession to the respondent within a period of two months. Against which, the petitioner filed RCA.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichy. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after considering all the materials on record and order of the learned Rent Controller dismissed the RCA confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 17.12.2011.
6. Against the above said order, the CRP(MD).No.704 has been filed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act). The Courts below failed to take into account actual value of constructed building and 50% of the market value of land appurtenant to the building and value of the cost of construction of the building. The learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority failed to see that there are no amenities as specified in the schedule-I of the Act and that fair rent should not be more than 12% of the value arrived at taking into consideration the factors stated above. The Courts below failed to see that guidelines value cannot be taken as market value and the documents produced does not relate to the date of petition and not related to the block of the building, where the petition premises is situated.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Rent controller and Appellate Authority have followed the procedures laid down by the Act and has fixed the fair rent as Rs.1,625/-, whereas the respondent has claimed Rs.5,000/- per month, in RCOP.No.9 of 2003 for fixation of fair rent. The petition premises is in commercial area and respondent has provided the market value of the property and other necessary particulars for deciding the fair rent.
9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
10. The respondent filed RCOP.No.9 of 2003 for fixation of fair rent. Before the learned Rent Controller, the respondent examined three witnesses including the Engineer. Respondent himself examined as PW.1 and also summoned and examined official of Sub Registrar as PW.2 and marked the documents through him to show the guideline value. The respondent marked Ex.A1 report of approved valuer, Chartered Engineer and Licences Surveyor. The Commissioner also inspected the petition premises along with Engineer and Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. Engineers plan and report were marked as Exs.C3 and C4. The respondent also marked Ex.X3, dated 24.05.2014, being a xerox copy of the sale deed executed in respect of the adjoining property of the respondent. The petitioner filed Ex.B1 copy of the RCOP No. 13/2003. The learned Rent Controller considered the guideline value as well as value mentioned as Ex.X2 and arrived at the value of Rs.1,000/- per square feet. The learned Rent Controller considering the guidelines value as mentioned in Ex.B1 and oral and documentary evidence fixed value at Rs.1,000/- per square feet. The learned Rent Controller considering the Engineers report Ex.C3 and also considering the depreciation 2% per year and report of the approved valuer Ex.A1, fixed the value of the building as Rs.200/- per square feet. The learned Rent Controller also gave depreciation 2% per year. The learned Rent Controller considering all those facts fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,625/-. The learned Appellate Authority giving valid reason dismissed the RCA.No.16 of 2007 confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller.
11. C.R.P.(MD)No.704 of 2014 arises out of the order, dated 23.08.2013, passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2012, by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority [Principal Subordinate Judge], Trichy, confirming the order dated 17.12.2011, passed in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2003, by the learned Rent Controller [Principal District Munsif], Trichy.
12. The respondent/landlord filed the said R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2003 for evicting the petitioner on the grounds of willful default, demolition and reconstruction and that the petitioner is using the petition premises for different purpose, for which, it was let out. According to the respondent, the monthly rent is Rs.300/- and he used to give receipt for payment of rent. The petitioner is irregular in payment of rent and willfully defaulted in payment of rent from January 2002 to December 2002, totally a sum of Rs.36,000/-. The respondent deposed as P.W.1 to that effect.
13. The petitioner contended that he paid rent regularly to the watchman of the respondent, who handed over the same to the respondent. The petitioner deposed to that effect as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.3, Letter dated 12.02.2002, written by the Watchman. The learned Rent Controller considered the oral and documentary evidence and rejected the contention of the petitioner in view of the payments made by him to a lumpsum of Rs.33,000/- on 28.02.2011 and Rs.1,500/- on 25.07.2011. If really the petitioner had paid the rent regularly to the Watchman of the respondent and if there is no arrears of rent, the petitioner would not have paid these lumpsum payments. The petitioner has not proved that he regularly paid the rent and there was no arrears of rent and has not explained as to why he made lumpsum payments. Hence, the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rent, is based on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record.
14. The Commissioner appointed by the Court inspected the petition premises and filed a report, stating that the building is in dilapidated condition. The petitioner admitted in cross-examination that the petition premise is situate in main road and the respondent has means to demolish and reconstruct the premises and if a new building is put up, the respondent will get more rent. In view of this admission and pleadings and evidence of the respondent, the learned Rent Controller held that the respondent has proved the need for demolition and reconstruction. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the grounds of willful default and demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, in the appeal, filed by the petitioner, independently considering all the materials on record and also considering the order of the learned Rent controller in proper perspective, dismissed the appeal by giving valid reasons.
15. After considering all the materials on record I hold that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Courts below failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is untenable and has no force. A reading of the orders of the Courts below show that they have followed the procedure as laid down by the said Act. The learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority have exercised their powers conferred on them in a proper perspective and there is no irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the concurrent orders of the Courts below are valid and legal and there is no reason or circumstance warranting interference by this Court.
16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
17. The petitioner is directed to vacate and hand over the premises to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
To The Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif Court, Thiruchirappalli.