THE HON"BLE MR v. V.Venugopal2.V.Manoharan3.V.Jayasankar4.V.Ganesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.07.2007CORAM:THE HON"BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMCRP.NPD.NOS.560,561 AND 932 OF 2006CRP.NPD.Nos.560 and 561 of 2006:M.V.Damodaran ...Petitioner in both CRPs/TenantVs.1.V.Venugopal2.V.Manoharan3.V.Jayasankar4.V.Ganesh ...Respondents in both CRPs/LRs of the LandlordThese Civil Revision Petitions are filed under section25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 18/60 asamended by Act 23/73 & Act 1/80 against the order and decretalorder in RCA.Nos.1383 of 2004 and 197 of 2005 respectively on thefile of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Rent ControlAppellate Authority) dated 30.8.2005 modifying the order passedin RCOP.No.806 of 2000 dated 4.10.2004 on the file of XV Judge,Small Causes Court, Chennai.CRP.NPD.NO.932 of 2006:V.Radhabai(since deceased)by legal representatives1.T.Venugopal2.V.Manoharan3.V.Jayashankar4. V.Ganesh ...Petitioner/LRs of the Landlord Vs.M.V.Damodaran ...Respondent/TenantThis Civil Revision petition has been filed under section 25of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 18/60 asamended by Act 23/73 & Act 1/80 against the decree and judgmentdated 30.8.2005 in RCA.No.1383 of 2004 on the file of VIII Judge,Court of Small Causes, Madras modifying the order and decreeorder dated 4.10.2004 in RCOP.No.806 of 2000 on the file of XVCourt, Small Causes, Madras. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr.V.P.Ramanin CRP.932/06 and Respondents in CRP.560 & 561/06For respondent :Mr.V.K.Sathiamoorthyin CRP.932/06 and for the petitioner in CRP.560 & 561/06-----O R D E RThis order shall govern these three CRPs. viz. 560,561of 2006 at the instance of the tenant and CRP.No.932 of 2006 atthe instance of the landlord.2. Originally the landlord filed RCOP.No.806 of 2000under the Tamil Nadu (Buildings and Lease Rent Control) Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for fixation of fair rent.On enquiry, the rent was fixed by the rent Controller atRs.17,364/- p.m. Aggrieved tenant took it on appeal in RCA.No.197of 2005, while the landlord took it on appeal in RCA.No.1383 of2004. The appeal by the tenant was dismissed, while the appealfiled by the landlord was allowed by re-fixing the fair rent fromRs.17,364/- to Rs.18,881/-. Aggrieved over the same, the tenanttook two revisions viz. CRP.Nos.560 and 561 of 2006, while thelandlord has preferred CRP.No.932 of 2006. Thus, three CivilRevision Petitions have arisen before this Court.3. Concededly, the revision petitioner in CRP.No.932 of2006 is the absolute owner and the landlady of the premisesNo.180, Purasalwalkam High Road, Kellys, Madras-10, that theground floor portion of the premises was let out to therespondent/tenant in the year 1983 for business purpose where thetenant is running a Chinese Restaurant, that originally the rentwas paid as agreed between the parties at the rate of Rs.5,856/-.The landlady calculated the fair rent at Rs.31,260/- filedRCOP.No.806 of 2000 alleging that the property is in a primelocality and the area occupied by the tenant is 1500 sq.ft.Taking into consideration the area where the property is situatedand the nature of the building being occupied and also applyingthe provisions of the Act, the tenant was directed to payRs.31,260/-. The application was vehemently contested by therespondent therein who is the revision petitioner/tenant inCRP.Nos.560 and 561 of 2006. The Rent Controller, on enquiry,fixed the fair rent at. Rs.17,364/-. Aggrieved over the same,RCA.No.1383 of 2004 at the instance of the landlord andRCA.No.197 of 2005 at the instance of the tenant were preferred.Both the appeals were taken up for joint enquiry. The appellateauthority, on enquiry of the appeals, re-fixed the fair rent at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.18,881/- and hence the above CRPs. have arisen as statedabove.4. When the Civil Revision petitions were taken up forconsideration, it is brought to the notice of the Court that thelandlady originally filed an application for eviction of thetenant on the ground of subletting and additional accommodationand both the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authoritydenied the relief by rejecting her claim. Thereafter, she filedthe Civil Revision petition in CRP.No.505 of 2003 before thisCourt and on enquiry, this Court ordered eviction by allowing theCivil revision petition. Aggrieved over the same, the tenanttook it on appeal and now it is at the admission stage before theApex Court.5. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, it issubmitted by both sides that the parties have arrived at asettlement whereby they agreed that from the time of filing ofthe RCOP.No.806 of 2000, the tenant has to pay the monthly rentat the rate of Rs.22,000/- as per the English Calendar month,excepting Rs.2,000/- which is payable by him towards maintenanceand water charges and the landlord also amenable to receive thesaid amount. Thus now the rent is fixed at Rs.22,000/- per monthfrom the time when RCOP.No.806 of 2000 was filed exceptRs.2,000/- towards maintenance and water charges . It is alsomade clear that both the parties further agree that they arebound by the orders passed in the Special Leave Petition pendingbefore the Apex Court . The revision petitioner/tenant inCRP.Nos.560 and 561 of 2006 undertakes to make the payment of theentire arrears as calculated above, within a period of twelvemonths i.e. in four equal monthly instalments and get properreceipts from the landlord. The amount that has already beendeposited by the tenant have got to be given credited to in thetotal arrears of amount, as found above.6. With the above observation, the Civil revisionpetitions are disposed of. No costs. 23.07.2007These Civil Revision Petitions having been posted on24.7.2007 under the caption 'Being Mentioned' pursuant to theorder of this court dated 23.7.2007 and made herein and in thepresence of the aforesaid advocates, the Court made the followingorder:-The matter is listed for being mentioned today. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. When the above matter was called, learned counselfor the petitioner would submit that in paragraph 5 of this Courtorder, the amount fixed at Rs.2,000/- towards maintenance andwater charges may be mentioned as Rs.2,000/- towards maintenanceand electric charges for pumping water from the sump. It is alsofurther submitted that the commencement of the first instalmentmay be mentioned as from 1st of August, 2007.3. Therefore, in paragraph 5 of the above order, thewords "maintenance and water charges " shall be deleted and"maintenance and electric charges for pumping water from thesump" may be inserted, wherever it occurs. It is to be added atthe end of the order that the commencement of the firstinstalment starts from First of August, 2007".24.07.2007VJYSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority,(VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes)Madras.2. The Rent Controller,(XV Judge, Court of Small Causes)Madras.3. The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. V. P. Raman, Advocate SR No. 45629+ 2 ccs to Mr. C. Rajan, Advocate SR No. 7563CRP.NPD.NOS.560,561 AND 932 OF 2006NG(CO)SR/31.7.2007