M.A. Hameed Khan vs Abdul Khader Makeri

Sengottuvelan, J.—This civil revision petition is filed by the tenant in respect of the premises bearing door No. 9, Alangayam Road,

Tirupattur town, against the order of the appellate authority fixing rent for the premises occupied by him at the rate of Rs. 90 per month. The

respondent herein, who is the landlord, filed H.R.C.O.P. 2 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller and District Munsif, Tirupattur, praying for

fixation of fair rent under S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 29 of 1973. The House Rent

Controller, after observing that the relevant materials have not been placed before him to fix the fair rent, proceeded to fix the fair rent of the

premises at Rs. 90 per month. The observation of the Rent Controller can be usefully extracted--

Therefore, it is evident that the Rent Controller has to fix the fair rent only in accordance with the principles set out in the sub-sections, of S.4. Here

in this case, the evidence let on the side of both the parties are not sufficient enough to arrive at any finding on the abovesaid guidelines. As a matter

of fact, the evidence let on the side of the petitioner as well as the respondent is very much vague and insufficient to arrive at any finding. No

materials ate available before this Tribunal for arriving at a fair rent for the petition mentioned premises in accordance with the provisions contained

in S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Practically there is no evidence let on the side of the petitioner as to what would

be the site value and the building value of the petition mentioned premises.

The Rent Controller, observed that, in fixing the fair rent the norms laid down in S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,

1960, namely, the market value of the site, the cost of construction of the building and the cost of provision of the amenities specified in Schedule I

after giving due allowance for the depreciation as provided under Schedule 2 of the Act, will have to be taken into consideration. But, without the

relevant materials, the Rent Controller seems to have proceeded to fix the fair rent on several assumptions which cannot be said to be correct. The

lower appellate court did not bestow attention to the fact that the order of the Rent Controller was not based on proper materials. Under the

circumstances, both the orders of the courts below do not appear to be correct and I have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the appellate

authority. The civil revision petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal in accordance with the

provisions contained in S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. There will be no

order as to costs.