- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
D.V Ramana Venkataramana Bhat. v. P.S Rathina Bai
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner is the tenant in RCOP 1971 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The tenant originally filed a petition for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller (trial court) fixed the fair rent at Rs. 965/-. The tenant appealed (RCA 659 of 1994) to the Appellate Authority, which after hearing both sides fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1,120/-. The tenant filed the present revision petition challenging the Appellate Authority's order enhancing the fair rent.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in an appeal filed by a tenant challenging fixation of fair rent, the Appellate Authority is justified in enhancing the fair rent.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was whether the Appellate Authority could lawfully enhance the fair rent in an appeal filed by the tenant challenging the fixation of fair rent.
The opinion records that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue the merits of the case beyond that point.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 1974 (1) S.C.C 424 (Raval and Co. v. K.G Ramachandran) | The decision interprets provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Rent and Lease Control) Act to hold that fair rent is fixed for the building and applies whether the application is made by a landlord or tenant; fixation of fair rent is not necessarily for the tenant's benefit and must follow the scheme and norms of the Act. | The court relied on this principle to emphasize that fair rent is fixed for the building under the Act and that the fair rent must be determined according to statutory norms regardless of whether the applicant is a tenant or landlord. |
| Manujendra v. Purendu Prasad | Referenced in the exposition of Raval and Co.; the opinion notes that criticism in Manujendra of another decision was not justified. | The opinion records the Raval court's conclusion that the criticism in Manujendra regarding Krishnamurthy's case was not justified and treats Manujendra in the context of distinguishing decisions made under different statutory schemes. |
| Krishnamurthy's case | Mentioned as a case criticized in Manujendra; the Raval decision concluded that the criticism was not justified and that previous decisions were based on different Acts. | The opinion cites the Raval court's view that prior decisions (including Krishnamurthy's case) were shaped by the particular provisions of the respective Rent Acts and therefore are not universally applicable to the Madras Act. |
| 1989 (1) L.W 172 (Savani Transports (P) Ltd. v. N. Jamal Mohammed) | The case holds that when the statute prescribes particular principles (e.g., S.4(1) and S.4(5)(a) regarding determination of construction cost), the forum must determine fair rent in accordance with those principles even if the resulting fair rent exceeds the amount claimed by the landlord. | The court applied this principle to conclude that statutory procedure must be followed and that it is permissible for a forum to fix a fair rent higher than amounts claimed when the Act's norms so dictate; this supported the view that the petitioner lacked an arguable case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the single challenge: whether the Appellate Authority could enhance fair rent in an appeal brought by the tenant. It reviewed binding and persuasive authority on interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Rent and Lease Control) Act. Raval and Co. v. K.G Ramachandran was cited to establish that fair rent is fixed for the building and applies irrespective of which party applies; it need not be biased in favour of the tenant and must follow the statutory scheme.
The court also relied on Savani Transports v. N. Jamal Mohammed to state the proposition that the forums constituted under the Act must determine fair rent according to the statutory principles (including S.4(1) and S.4(5)(a) relating to cost of construction and reference to PWD rates), even if the result is higher than amounts claimed by a party. The court concluded that these principles require strict adherence to the statutory procedure.
Applying these principles to the present facts, the court noted that the Appellate Authority has all the powers of the Rent Controller and the entire case was open to reappreciation on appeal. The Appellate Authority found that the Rent Controller had not followed the procedure under Section 4 of the Act and therefore reappreciated and recalculated the fair rent, arriving at a higher figure. Because the tenant's appeal sought fixation of fair rent (without asking specifically for a lower figure on the basis of tenancy status), the Appellate Authority was exercising its statutory power to fix the fair rent according to the Act's norms. The petitioner did not press merits beyond the preliminary point.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The court dismissed the revision petition for lack of merit and ordered no costs. The direct effect is that the Appellate Authority's fixation of the fair rent at Rs. 1,120/- remains undisturbed. The opinion does not articulate broader new legal principles beyond applying existing authorities; accordingly, no new precedent was proclaimed in this decision.
1. Tenant in RCOP 1971 of 1988 on the file of Court of Small Causes, Madras is the petitioner herein.
2. The petition was filed for fixation of fair rent. Trial Court fixed fair rent as Rs. 965/-. Aggrieved by the order, tenant preferred RCA 659 of 1994 on the file of Appellate Authority. After hearing both sides, Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1120/-. It is against the said order the revision petition is filed.
3. Only point that is argued by learned counsel for petitioner is whether in the appeal filed by the tenant challenging the fixation of fair rent, Appellate Authority is justified in enhancing the fair rent?
4. I heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
5. In 1974 (1) S.C.C 424 (Raval and Co. v. K.G Ramachandran), their Lordships considered the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Rent and Lease Control) Act, regarding fixation of fair rent. In para 19 of the judgment their Lordships approved the Full Bench of this Court and held thus,
“The Madras High Court reviewed all the decisions of this Court except the latest one in Manujendra v. Purendu Prasad (supra). We have already pointed out that the criticism made in that decision regarding Krishnamurthy's case (supra) was not justified. We are in agreement with the view of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court that the various decisions of this Court were based upon particular provisions of the Acts which were under consideration, mainly the Bombay Act which is vitally different from the Madras Act. A close analysis of the Madras Act shows that it has a scheme of its own and it is intended to provide a complete (Code in respect of both contractual tenancies as well as what arc popularly called statutory tenancies. As noticed earlier the definition of the term ‘land lord’ as well as the term ‘tenant’ shows that the Act applies to contractual tenancies as well as cases of “Statutory tenants” and their landlords. On some supposed genenal principles governing all Rent Acts it cannot be argued that such fixation can only be for the benefit of the tenants when the act clearly lays down that both landlords and tenants can apply for fixation of fair rent. A close reading of the Act shows that the fair rent is fixed for the building and it is payable by whoever is the tenant whether a contractual tenant or to the landlord who applies for fixation of fair rent but fair rent for the building. Something like an incident of the tenure regarding the building.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6. It is clear from the above decision that fair rent is fixed for the building whether it is applied by tenant or landlord. Fixation of fair rent does not mean fixation of low rent favourable or beneficial to the advantage of tenant, as that would result in landlord getting only an unfair rent. A fair rent is fixed as per the specified procedure provided under the Act. Fair rent is essentially just rent having regard to all the circumstances and it is not rent favourable to the tenant as such. Whoever may be the applicant, the fair rent will have to be fixed according to the norms prescribed under the Act.
7. In 1989 (1) L.W 172 (Savani Transports (P) Ltd. v. N. Jamal Mohammed), landlord wanted to fix fair rent at a particular amount. But, when the procedure under the Act was followed, the fair rent will be far in excess of (he amount claimed by the Landlord. The question was whether the Court is entitled to fix fair rent than what is claimed by the Landlord. Justice Nainar Sundaram (as he then was) has held thus,
“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 Giovcrnment for the area concerned. Merely because of 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. 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.
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 clone 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
If this is the principle that is to be followed, I do not think that petitioner has got arguable case.
8. Appellate Authority has got all the powers of the Rent Controller and the entire case is open before him. While considering the appeal, it found that the Rent Controller has not followed the procedure under Section 4 of the Act. It reappreciated and recalculated the amount payable to the Landlord. Eventhough in the appeal filed by the tenant, he may be aggrieved in fixation of fair rent at particular amount, when he files appeal, he pleads before the Appellate Authority only to fix fair rent. He has not pleaded before Appellate Authority to fix lower rent because he happened to be a tenant. It is only that power that is exercised by the Appellate Authority while holding that the fair rent fixed by Rent Controller is low and if the norms are followed, the rent amount payable will be higher.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner did not argue on merits of the case.
10. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
RR/VCS.
Alert