K. C. NAMBIAR v. THE IV JUDGE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSFS, MADRAS & Ors.

Ground Floor First floor Second Floor Ground Floo:- Firs1 Floor Second Floor Singlc-Storcycd Singlc-Storcycd .. Rs. 16 per square foot of rlin1h area. .. Rs. J 3 per square foot of plinth area. .. Rs. 12 per square fool of plinth area. .. Rs. 13 per square fool of plinth area. .. Rs. 10 per square foot of plinrh area. , , Rs. 9 per square foot of plinlh arta. . , '!:ts. JO per square foot of plinth arta. , . Rs. S per square foot of plinth area. Nore.-ln case of every additional floor higher up, the rate per square foot shall be one rupee less than the rate per square foot for the floor immediately below." r. 13-"When calculating the cost of construction of nryn-residcntial buildings, allowances shall be made for the following amenities in addition to those speci fied in section 4(3)- (1) air-conditioning; (2) lifts; A B c D E F G H K. c. NAMBI.'R v. JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT (Shah, Ag. C.J) 90& A B c D E F (3) electric fans; (4) tube-lipts; (5) number of electric points; (6) fans; (7) ventilators; (8) electric pump for water; (9) fliish-otits; (10) fixed wash-basins; (11) stair-cases; (12) out-houses; (13) cattle-Sheds; (14) gard~ or vacant ground appurtenant ouildfug enjoyed by the tenant; and (15) usl(fructs of trees, if any, enjoyed by the tenant". r. 14-·~e depreciation of buildings shall be cal culated at the rates specified in Schedule II". Dr. K. C. Nambiar is the tenant of 2/137, Purasawalkam High Road, Madras at a monthly rental of Rs. 181-50. He conducts a nursing home in the premises. The landlord of the premises applied· to the Controller claiming that fair rent of the premises in the occupation of Dr. Nambiar be fixed at Rs. 2,575 per month. Pr .•iNambiar applied to the High Court of Madras for a writ of prQhibition against the Controller from proceeding with the applic~on for fixation of fair rent. He pleaded that the "rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the power vested in them by s. 4 were inconsistent with the intention and ambit of the) Act" and were on that account invalid. The petition was heard by a single Judge with several other petitions in which the validity of the rules was challenged. The learned Judge passed an order dismissing the petition, and the order was • confirmed in appeal by the High Court. Dr. Nambiar has appeal ed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court. G H It was urged on behalf of Dr. Nambiar before the High that the expression "cost of production" in sub-s. (3) of Court s. 4 means the cost of the original construction and the landlord was not entitled to claim that the fair rent be fixed on the basis of cost which may be estimated to be incurred for reproducing a similar buildin,g at the date of the application or the date on which the Act was brought into force. learned Single Judge rejected the contention. He observed that "the statutory is used sense in which tlie word 'cost' or the phrase 'total cost' in sub-s. (2)(a) i$ not the original cost or the original expendi 'Total cost' ture incurred for the construction of the building. The 910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1970] l s.c.R. in s. 4 ( 2) is a composite concept consist mg of. ....... three components ........ out of which the. cost of construction for the purpose of arriving at the total cost is to be calculated according to the rates prescribed for each class of building prescribed and not the initial expenditure incurred in the construction". The learned Judge proceeded then to observe:- "Normally, the notion of depreciation is a subsequent fall in value or reduction of worth due to deterioration arising from age, use and other caus.es and it is deducted from the last value of the building as reduced by pre·;ious depreciation. But the depreciation calculated at prescribed rates is under s. 4(2) (b) to be deducted from the cost of the constructio~ as calculated according to the rates prescribed. When the cost of construction arrived at on such basis, the depreciation at the prescrib ed rate is to be deducted therefrom backwards. This mode of deduction of depreciation is no doubt a reverse process. But there seems to be nothing strange in such a manner of arriving at the cost of construction .... " The High Court in appeal observed : "In the first place we are of the opinion that the lan guage of s. 4 itself is clear that what the legislature has in mind on the <.!Uestion of the cost of construction, is what has been specified under the rules and Sch. I. The very fact thats. 4(2)(b)(i) provides that the cost of construction is to be according to such rates for such class of residential buildings as may be prescribed shows that it is not actual cost of construction, but it is the cost of construction which can be detennined on the basis of rates as may be spei:ified. The words "such rates for such classes of residential buildings as may be prescribed" clearly carry with it the conception of the fixing of a statutory rate which may or may not have any relation to or connection with the actual investment. Again the provisions of allowance with regard to considerations cl locality, features of architectural interest and such other matters for which allowance is made at a percentage not exceeding I 0% of the cost of construction is to be deter mined as on the date when the Act came intc force and not the actual original investment. . . . We seen no warrant to hold that the Legislature intended to make a vital difference between the valuation of the site, which is the market value, and the cost of construction of the building which is the original cost of construction or in vestment as contended for by Mr. Nambiyar." A B c D E F H K. C. NAMBJAR v. JUDJI, SMALL CAUSES COURT (Shah, Ag. C.J.) 911 A B c D E F G H These observaticm interpreting sub-s. (2) of s. 4 apply also to the interpretation of suJ>.s. ( 3) of s. 4, because the relevant provisions in regard to determination of the cost of construction of non residential buildings are identical. By sub-s. ( 1) of s. 4 the Controller is invested with authority to fix fair rent of. buildings in respect of which an application is made in accordaince with the principles set out in sub-ss. (2) & (3) and such other principles as may be prescribed. Under sub-s. (3) fair rent o.f any non-residential building is to be computed at nine per cent of the gross return per annum on the ~otal cost of such building and the total cost of the building is to consist of three com ponents-(i) the, cost of construction; (ii) the market value of the portion of the site on which the nom-residential building is cons tructed; and (iii) such allowances not exceeding 25% 0f the cost of construction as may be made for locality, features of architec tural interest, acce~sibility to market, neamess of a railway station and other amenities as may be prescribed. On behalf of Dr. Nambiar it is urged that the "cost of construc tirm" only means cost incurred for constructing the building when it was put up, ·and the cost. of such additions as rnay have been subsequently made. On behalf of the landlord and the State of Madras it is urged that the expression cost of construction means the cost of reproducing a similar building at the date on which the Act was brought into force and therefore in determining fair rent the Controller must determine for th-o purpose of s. 4 ( 3 )(b) ( i) the cost of such reproduced building according to rules in that be half and deduct therefrom the depreciation at the prescribed rate. In other words, it is intended t<i determine under sub-s. (3) (b) (i) the market value of the structure at the date of the enactment of the Act. The Legislature has used in sub-section (3)(b) (i) the expres sion "cost of construction" and in sub-s. (3) (b) (ii) "market value". It is difficult to accept that the Legislature has used two different expressions for providing that the market value of the building and market value of the site shall form components of the total cost of In Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edn., at p. 415 a building. -"cost" it is stated "means the amount originally expended in performing a particular act or operation, or for production or con struction, as of a building." There is, not infrequently great differ ence between the cost of an article and the value of an article. Cost of an article in terms of money is what the owner has expended to obtain it; the value of the article is ordinarily its market value in a market actual or hypothetical. It may be conceded that the ex pression "cost" is sometimes used as meaninir the value of an article. But the expression "cost of construction" in sub-s. 3(b) (i) for determining the first component when used in juxtaposition with Ll5Sup.CJ/69-14 .. 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19 70] I S.C.R. the expression "market value" in sub-s. 3(b) (ii) is, in our judg ment, used to denote not the mJrket value but the cost of the origiaal construction. There are inherent indications in els. (i). (ii) and (iii) of sub-s. (3) which go to prove that the expression "cost of construction" was not intended to mean the market value. The expression "cost of building" includes not only the expenses in curred for constructing the building, but also the value of advant ages which the site of the building offers, such as accessibility to markets, nearness to a railway station, special amenities, and fea tu~es of architectural interest. If the expression "cost of construc tion" is equated with the "market value", it would necessarily in clude the special advantages of its situation, amenities and architectural features. But the Legislature has provided for includ ing in the cost of the building apart from the cost of constructiQ!l. the value cf allowances for favourable situation, amenities and architectural features. That is a ground for holding that the value of allowances is not included in the cost of building. Amenities such as air-conditioning, lifts, electric fans, tube lights, number of electric points, fans, ventilators, electric pump for water, flush-outs, fixed wash-basins, stair-cases, out-houses, cattle-sheds, garden or vacant ground appurtenant to the building enjoyed by the tenant and usufructs of trees, if any, enjoyed by the tenant will also be included in the cost of building as allowances. But many of these amenities would be taken into account in deter mining the market value of the building. The learned Advocatc General appearing on behalf of the State of Madras was unable to explain why the Legislature in the determination of the cost of building for arriving at the fair rent. if the view expressed by the High Court is correct, enacted that these allowances should be in cluded twice, once as part of component (i) and again as pact of component (iii). A B c D E F The learned Trial Judge has rightly pointed out 1hat in deter mining the cost of construction, if the contention of the State be accepted in determining the first component of the cost of building will be the cost of reproducing the building at a given time reduced by the depreciation computed on the life of the building-a process which reverses the normal method cf making allowances for deprc- G ciation. Again, if the meaning of the expression "cost of construc tion" were "market value" it would mean that the market value having regard to the market conditions of real property which may go on changing year after year. But the State has accepted by r. 12 the cost of construction is a fixed quantity related to the date on which the Act was brought into force. Therefore by prescribing the rate at which the cost of construction is to be determined under r. 12, the expression "cost of construction" is neither the original cost, nor the value of the building at a given time during the lifo of II ,. K, C. NAMBIAR v. JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT (Shah, Ag. C.J) 91 3 A the Act, but an attbicial value related to the assumed cost of cons truction on the date on which the Act was enacted. The Advocate-General, however, submitted that in respect of old buildings it may not be possible to ascertai:n what the cost of construction of a particular building was. But that argument can not support an int~rpretation which the plain words used by the statute do not warrant. Counsel for the appellant pointed out, that P.W.D. rates ih respect of different classes of buildings for man'y years are available, and it should not be difficult for the Con troller, having regard to the P .W.D. rates which would form a fairly reliable basis for determining, what the cost of construction of a particular type of huildi:ng was. n.e argument that the "cost of construction" of a buildicg is to be such cost as may be prescribed, iavites the answer I that a provision which, without any guidance, leaves it to the executive authority to fix whatever that authority thinks is the cost Of cons(rucdon, is invalid on the ground of exces sive delegation. If the Legislature bas sought to confer authority upon the executive to fix the rates and to call them cost of construc tion, the. Legisla(Ure has abdicated its authority in favour of the executive which in law is !l!Ot permissible. This however was not the argument which was advanced before the High Court, for it was the case of the State that the rates specified in the rules were rates which were actually prevailing in 1961 in respect of different classes of buildings. It was also urged that al. Jowing depreciation at the rates pres cribed in Sch. II to the rules might unduly depreciate the value of the properties and the landlord may not get a fair return. But it has been a common feature of rent restriction legislation all over India that the landlord is not allowed the benefit of unearned incre ment on the value of his construction. That is why in practically every statute relating to rent restriction legislation rent is pegged down to either a fixed period or to standard rent which is generally related to the cost of construction originally incurred. We are accordingly unable to agree with the High Court that the Legislature intended by the use of the expression "cost of cons truction" and. "market value" used in els. (i) and (ii) of sub-s. (3) the same concept of determining the value of a building reproduced at the date when the Act came into force and reduced by deprecia tion at the prescribed rates. Some arguinent about the true meaning of Note (2) to Sch. II whkb pr0vides for the.standard rates of depreciation was raised be fore us. The language used in that Note, even as explained by the illustrations, is obscure. We are in this case not called upon to determine the meaning of that clause. If the expression "cost of construction" in sub-s. B c D E F G H t 914 SuPRBIE COuRT REPORTS (1970] l SC.R (3) (b) (i) means the cost of c011S1ruction of the building as origi nally erected with such additions as may be required to be made for subsequent improveme, nts, r. 12 which prescribes the rates at which the cost of construction is to be computed plainly goes beyond the terms of the section. The appeal is allowed. The order dismissing the petition is dis charged. The Controller will determine the fair rent accorJing to the provisions of the Act uninfluenced by r. 12. The appellant wi:; be entitled to his costs in this Court and the High Courl. A R.K.P.S. Appeal allowed.