1. These two revisions arise out of proceedings for fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The landlord is the petitioner in C.R.P 2081 of 1984 and the tenant is the petitioner in C.R.P 3423 of 1983. The premises demised is situate at new door No. 250 Thambu Chetti St, Madras. The agreed rent was Rs. 2000 per month. The landlord claimed for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 3750 per month. The iant would not adhere to the agreed rent ana would say that the fair rent only comes to Rs. 1350 per month. The Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2337 per month. Both the landlord and tenant appealed and the appellate authority found no warrant to differ from the decision of the Controller and dismissed both the appeals. Thus, the landlord and the tenant are obliged to prefer these revisions.
2. The first aspect canvassed both by the learned Advocate General appearing for the landlord and the learned counsel appearing for the tenant related to the land value. Learned Advocate General appearing for the landlord would submit that as per Ex P4 the valuation done by the Wealth Tax department even as early as 14.11.1974, the land value came to Rs. 1,20,000 per ground, and the area concerned is 1 ground and 495 sq. ft. out of which the built-up area is 1 ground and 154 sq.ft and both the Controller and the Appellate authority, without any acceptable reason, declined to go by this valuation adding on proportionate increases on account of passage of time. As against this, Mr. Udairaj Gulecha, learned counsel for the tenant, would submit that Ex. R7 dated 14-10-1982, which is a registration copy of a sale deed of a property in Thambu Chetti Street, must be taken as a guideline for fixing the value of the land at Rs. 75000 per ground. The appellate authority has not disputed the position that the value of the sites are increasing day by day. Even otherwise, this is a position which one could not lose sight of. The appellate authority has proceeded that Ex. P4 contains combined value of both the land and the building. This is a total misconception. Ex. P4 gives the value of the land separately. Hence, the thinking of the appellate authority cannot be upheld. The appellate authority has not accepted Ex. R7 relied on by the tenant. Yet, the appellate authority would choose to concur with the decision of the Controller with regard to the value of the land. On going through the common judgment of the appellate authority, I get a first impression that the question with regard to the value of the land has been adjudicated upon by the appellate authority in a most summary and a cursory manner without reference to the actual figures available as per Ex P4. As already pointed out, there has got to be a proportionate enhancement taking note of the passage of time.
3. Coming to the cost of construction, learned Advocate General appearing for the landlord would make two submissions. One is that the appellate authority has not discussed the evidence placed by the parties on the question of special amenities, and on the other hand, after merely referring to the respective cases, put forth by them, has come to an abrupt conclusion that there is no warrant for allowing 30 per cent of the cost of construction for special amenities. There is the evidence of P.W.1, with regard to the existence of roller shutters and granolithic flooring. Of course, there is contra evidence on behalf of the tenant. But, significantly there is no advertence to the evidence placed in the case, by the appellate authority and as rightly contended by the learned Advocate General, appearing for the landlord, the conclusion of the appellate authority is not supported by any proper reasoning and not preceded by discussion of the evidence placed in the case. The second submission of the learned Advocate General appearing for the landlord is that even though the landlord claimed the cost of construction at a particular rate, there is a duty cast by S. 4 (5) (a) of the Act to fix the fair rent for the premises in question, taking into consideration the cost of construction as per the rates of the Public Works Department of the Government for the area concerned, and since the statutory provisions have not been adhered to, there is a need for re-examining the question by the appellate authority, permitting landlord to place the records reflecting the cost of construction as per the rates of the Public Works department of the Government for the area concerned. A reading of S. 4 (5) (a) supports this argument of the learned Advocate General. The determination of the cost of construction shall be done with due regard to the rates adopted for the purpose of estimation by the Public Works Department of the Government for the area concerned. This ratio has not been admittedly adhered to by the Forums below in the instant case. However, Mr. Udhairaj Gulecha, learned counsel for the tenant, would submit that the present grievance was never expressed by the landlord at any point of time earlier and that the cost of construction determined as per his own valuation and the landlord should not be permitted to press forth and urge this provision before this Court in revision. Learned counsel for the tenant expressed an apprehension that by this process being adopted, the landlord will get more than what he asked for. But, when the statute says that the determination of the fair rent has got to be done, in accordance with a particular provision set out therefor, it has got to be done only in that manner and it is no answer to say that the landlord's demand in his petition has been met and he could not be allowed to have more in accordance with the provisions of the Act. S. 4 (1) of the Act speaks about the fixation of fair rent for the building in accordance with the principles set out in the following sub-sections. S. 4 (5) (a) sets out the principle for determination of the cost of construction and it requires that due regard should be had for the rates adopted for the estimation by the Public Works department of the Government for the area concerned. Merely because the fair rent to be determined in accordance with the principles referred, to in the statutory provisions will exceed the estimation of fair rent done by the landlord the forums constituted under the Act cannot shirk their statutory obligations to fix the fair rent as per the said principles. I am convinced that the matter should go back to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration of all the relevant aspects for determination of fair rent permitting the parties to place further evidence including the requisite materials reflecting the rates of the Public Works Department for the area concerned on the question of the cost of construction. This alone would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, C.R.P 3423 of 1983 and C.R.P 2081 of 1984 are allowed and the matter is remitted to the file of the appellate authority for him to consider the entire question of fixation of fair rent, avoiding the infirmities noted above and considering all the relevant aspects with regard to determination of fair rent, including the cost of construction, as per the rate of Public Works Department of the Government for the area concerned and permitting the parties to place any further evidence they may require to substantiate their respective cases. There will be no order as to costs in both the revisions.
VCS/RR.