These petitions by the tenants of the ground floor arise out of petitions for fixation of fair rent. Two mattere are argued—(1) regarding the enhanced market value fixed by the court below for the site on which the building stands and (2) regarding the distribution of the entire market value of the site over the ground floor ignoring the first second and third floors. The finding on the first question is factual and learned counsel for the petitioners himself realising this position did not and could not press it. But his contension on the second point is of substance. He says, quite justifiably, that the cost of the land on which the whole building is situate should not be solely assigned to the ground floor in arriving at the far market value for that floor.
Sec. 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960, provides for fixation of fair rent and the procedure to be followed for the purpose. Sec 4 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act, is in point to the present case. The fair rent for any residential building is to be at six per cent gross return per annum on tbe total cost of such building. The market value of that portion of the site on which the residential building is constructed is component to the total cost of the building. A building for the purpose of the Act is defined as one let of to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes. But this defination does not prevail if the context is repugnant, for the definition in the section opens with the words ‘unless the context otherwise requires’. It is true having regard to this difinition of a building and S. 30, the Act should be inapplicable to the first second and and third floors, because they are used as lodging rooms. But the ground floor, it is not in controversy, is governed by the provisons of the Act. That means the Rent Controller will have Jurisdiction and should exercise his power to fix the fair rent for the ground floor.
Mr. Mathrubhutham for the respondent argues that because the first, second and third floors are outside the purview of the Act, in the computation of fair rent it would not be competent for the Rent Controller to take into account the first, second and third floors and that the entire market value of the site on which the ground floor stands should be taken into account in fixing the cost of the building. Apart from the fact that the argument involves a gross injustice, I am inclined to think that the court is not driven to accept that construction. It is a principle of interpretation in regard to jurisdiction of judicial and quasi-judicial forums that, if in order to give, relief which is within its competence, it is necessary to touch upon and deal with a matter outside the purview of the form, it would be quite lawful to deal with such a matter as ancillary to the jurisdiction vested in the form in respect of the relief within its jurisdiction. Furtter the language ‘the market value of that portion of the site on which the residential building is constructed has to be construed in a liberal way and building in that expression is the entire buiiding, not merely that part of the building, which is within the purview of the Act. Ifa part of a building is within the purview of the Act and rest of it is outside it, and the Rent Controller is called upon to fix a fair rent for the ground floor, necessarily the entire building will have to be valued, and for doing so, the Rent Controller will have jurisdiction. In order to fix the fair rent for the portion within the purview of the Act, he has necessary to take the entire buiding which is an ancillary matter. A building is not to be cut up in the manner in which the respondent wants to do so as to inflate cost of the ground floor. Further there is nothing in the AC, which requires in such circumstances to assign the entire land cost to the ground floor alone.
The petitions and allowed with costs, are set Counsel's fee Rs. 25 in each. The matters are remitted to the Rent Controller, for revising the fair rent in tbe light of this judgment.
v.c.s