ORDER
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.
1. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the revision is filed against the fair rent enhanced to Rs.23,435/- per month by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by the tenant challenging the correctness of the fair rent fixed at Rs.18,648/- per month.
2. The landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition for fixation of fair rent in respect of a portion in the first floor of the petition premises bearing No.805, Anna Salai, Madras-2 with separate and independent access from premises No.804, Anna Salai, Madras-2. It is stated in the petition that the contractual rent is Rs.2,500/- per month. The tenant/revision petitioner is in occupation of a major portion of the first floor of the premises bearing No.805, Anna Salai, Madras consisting of one hall, two rooms, one reception room, one toilet, besides the exclusive staircase leading from the ground floor to the petition premises and the area in the occupation of the tenant is 2418 square feet and the exclusive staircase area is 212 square feet and in total 2630 square feet. The age of the building is 80 years, but it is to be taken as 60 years being the maximum for the purpose of computation of fair rent. The building is class ‘A’ type-I. The building is located in a very very highly commercial area and the bus-stands, colleges, banks, shops, hotels, etc., are located very near to the petition premises. Therefore, as per the calculation made in the petition, fair rent is to be fixed at Rs.37,249/- per month.
3. The petition was opposed in the counter that the area in the occupation of the tenant is less than 2400 square feet and admitted that the staircase is used by the tenant to reach the rented portion in the first floor. The other factors in fixing the fair rent are denied.
4. The learned Rent Controller taking into consideration the evidence adduced on either side and Exs.P-1 and P-2 marked on the side of the landlord and Exs.R-1 to R-12 marked on the side of the tenant and also Ex.C-1, the guideline value, fixed the fair rent at Rs.18,648/-. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the matter was remitted back to the learned Rent Controller as per judgment dated 30.7.1999 to find out the market value of the petition premises after examining the parties in respect of the sale deeds which have been marked before the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller after such remand, considering the further evidence adduced by P.W.2, Junior Assistant working in the Sub Registrar Office, Thousand Light and the document Ex.P-3 sent for by the landlord, fixed the market value of the petition premises at Rs.1,617/- per square feet and on that basis arrived the market value at Rs.38,80,800/- per ground to the petition premises and submitted the same to the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the further evidence recorded by the learned Rent Controller, enhanced the fair rent at Rs.23,435/-. Against that judgment and decree, the tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant mainly argued as regards the age of the building fixed at 65 years by the learned Rent Controller and adopted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and as regards the market value adopted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in enhancing the fair rent at Rs.23,435/-. Further it is contended that the market value of the land arrived at Rs.38,80,800/- per ground is not proper in view of the fact that it is not supported by evidence. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant also argued that in the appeal preferred by the tenant, the fair rent enhanced to Rs.23,435/- per month from that of Rs.18,648/- per month fixed by the learned Rent Controller is incorrect. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant placed reliance in the case of Srinivasa Gounder – vs. – K. Venkatesan reported in 1997-3 L.W. 193, in which this Court held:-
“Market value of property cannot be decided simply on the basis of valuation report or building plan. Sale transactions in the locality should be the basis. Accepting of the value given by the Sub Registrar, whether sufficient. Evidence must be let in by examining the persons concerned with the sale deed or the transactions.”
7. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord argued that though the learned Rent Control Appeal was filed by the tenant challenging the correctness of the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller, the fair rent enhanced by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is proper. As regards the market value, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord contended that inasmuch as no sale deed has been marked, in view of the fact, no sale transaction took place during the relevant time, the guideline value adopted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority at Rs.38,80,800/- per ground is justifiable. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has relied on the following decisions:-
(1) D.V. Ramana alias Venkataramana Bhat – vs.- P.S. Rathina Bai reported in 2000-1 Law Weekly 826, in which this Court has held:-
“It is clear 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.
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. Even though 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.”
(2) N. Sulaiman – vs. – R. Ravichandran reported in 1993 T.L.N.J. 226, in which this Court has held at page 227:-
“Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Others – vs. – Jasti Romini and Another (1955(1) Supreme Court Cases 717). The case is one under the Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court held that the basic valuation register maintained by the Municipality on the basis of a notification issued by the Government under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act could not be relied upon for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The judgment cannot have any bearing in the present case where we are concerned with Section 4 of the Act under which fair rent for the building is fixed.”
(3) R. Sai Bharathi – vs. – J. Jayalalitha , in which the Apex Court in paragraph 22 and 23 has ruled:-
“22. The guideline value has relevance only in the context of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended by TN Act 24 of 1967) which provides for dealing with instruments of conveyance which are undervalued. The guideline value is a rate fixed by authorities under the Stamp Act for purposes of determining the true market value of the property disclosed in an instrument requiring payment of stamp duty. Thus the guideline value fixed is not final but only a prima facie rate prevailing in an area. It is open to the registering authority as well as the person seeking registration to prove the actual market value of property. The authorities cannot regard the guideline valuation as the last word on the subject of market value. ……..
23. This explanation also will have to be read in conjunction with explanation to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended by TN Act 24 of 1967) which reads:
“Explanation – For the purpose of this Act, market value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Collector or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or the High Court, as the case may be, such property would have fetched or would fetch, if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance, exchange gift, release of benami right or settlement.”
8. The petition non-residential premises is situated at 805, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 and the major portion of the first floor is occupied by the tenant/revision petitioner and it is just opposite to L.I.C. Building and Alangar Theatre. The Pachaiappas Trust Building is next building in which the Indian Overseas Bank, Mount Road Branch is located in the ground floor. On the western side abutting the petition premises Addison and Co building is there. The multi storeyed (more than 6 storeyed) ‘Tarapore Towers’ is just at a distance of about 400 to 500 feet. Vummidiar Shopping Centre is next to the Pachaiappa Trust Building. The petition premises is in the first floor consists of a big hall having Mangalore tiled roof for major length and a bit beyond the arch is of Madras terrace roof using teakwood joists. There is a long portion of wall without any windows for the full length. There is office room for manager, visitors room, a rear room, a toilet with passage and the front entrance which are constructed with Madras Terrace roof using teak wood joists. All the walls are constructed with bricks in lime mortar and plastered with lime mortar. The floor is with ordinary cement plaster. There is a false ceiling for 12 feet and one inch height from the floor in the hall with Mangalore tiled roof. The false ceiling is provided over the Manager’s room, visitors room and over the entrance. The stair is roofed with AC Sheet roof supported by pillars. The landlord has not filed sanctioned plan and other documents to show that the building is more than 80 years old. Therefore, considering the said construction, the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority have rightly decided that the building is aged about 65 years and in respect of the false ceiling portion as 30 years.
9. Admittedly, the building is type-I building as it can be seen from the report of the Engineer R.W.2, who filed report Ex.R-8. Considering the evidence of R.W.2 and his report Ex.R-8, Madras Terrace portion is taken as 1141.60 square feet, AC Sheet roof as 287.19 square feet, Mangalore tiled roof hall as 1062.58 square feet and in respect of false ceiling portion as 1319.57 square feet (as per measurement of the Engineer who filed the report Ex.R-8).
10. The cost of construction as per the report Ex.R-8 adopted by the Engineer P.W.2 is viz., for Madras Terrace at Rs.137/- per square foot; for AC sheet roof at Rs.70/- per square foot and for Mangalore tiled roof portion at Rs.107/- per square foot. As per the Engineer Report Ex.P-1 marked on the side of the landlord the cost of construction for Madras Terrace is arrived at Rs.148/- per square foot; for AC sheet roof at Rs.92/- per square foot and for Mangalore tiled roof portion at Rs.116/- per square feet. Since there is no much of the different, the value of the Engineer P.W.1 examined on the side of the landlord as seen in Ex.P-1 has been rightly adopted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. As regards the false ceiling portion, the cost can be calculated at Rs.20/- per square foot as found by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.
11. As regards the cost of the site, no sale deed in respect of the adjacent premises and during the relevant time have been filed on the side of the landlord. The tenant alone has filed Ex.R-11 registration copy of sale deed dated 22.3.1989. According to the Engineer R.W.2, on the basis of the said sale deed, the cost of the site has been worked out to Rs.12,37,320/- per ground and accordingly filed his analysis statement Ex.R-12. The said sale deed Ex.R-11 relates to the premises bearing No.758 (old NO.151/1-B), Mount Road, Madras-2 relating to 5 grounds and 2154 square feet i.e., 14,154 square feet and the cost of land being in the year 1989 Rs.4,97,251.35 per ground, the Engineer has added 20% for each year from 1990 onwards and accordingly arrived at the said amount as the cost of site in the year 1994. The value adopted as such, cannot be construed as correct. After the matter was remitted back to the learned Rent Controller, Ex.P-3, the guide line value has been sent for at the instance of the landlord from the Sub Registrar Office, Thousand Light. As per the guideline value Ex.P-3, the cost of site would be about Rs.1,617.90 per square foot in the year 1993-94. Accordingly, P.W.2, the Junior Assistant, Sub Registrar Office at Thousand Light has sated so in his evidence in respect of the petition premises bearing No.805, Mount Road, Chennai. As per the guideline value Ex.P-3, it is stated by P.W.2 that it is applicable from the Saffire Theatre to Mount Road Darga. Since the petition premises is situated in between the Saffire Theatre and Mount Road Darga, the cost of site of the petition premises will be Rs.1,617.90 per square foot from April, 1993 to 31.3.1994. The value being the guideline value that value can be adopted and on that basis, the cost of site would come to Rs.38,80,800/- per ground. Considering the fact that the building is of two floors and the cost of rented premises is Rs.22,31,996/-,the total cost of building by adding the basic amenities at the rate of 5% arrived at Rs.23,43,595.00 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is proper and in which 12% will be the annual rent and therefore, the fair rent could be Rs.23,435/-.
12. It is settled by this Court and the Apex Court as per the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord(cited supra) that in the Rent Control Appeals filed by the tenant, the fair rent can be enhanced. Considering all these aspects, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly fixed the fair rent at Rs.23,435/- per month and such finding need not be disturbed.
13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No cost. The judgment and decree dated 19.9.2001 are confirmed. Consequently, the petition C.M.P.No.2461 of 2003 is closed.