High Court · 2025
Case Details
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 19.06.2025CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P .(NPD) Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.20873 of 2021Devarajan (Died)D.GovindrajanS/o.Devarajan ... Petitioner in CRP.2346 and 2347/2021Farwood Industries Ltd. Rep. By its ChairmanMr.M.P.Farook ... Petitioner inCRP.2896/2021Vs.Farwood Industries Ltd. Rep. By its ChairmanMr.M.P.Farook ... Respondent in CRP.2346 and 2347/2021Devarajan (Died)D.GovindrajanS/o.Devarajan ... Respondentin CRP.2896/2021COMMON PRAYER in CRP.No.2346 and 2347 of 2021: Civil Revision Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021Petitions are filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2021 in R.C.A.No.379 of 2016 and R.C.A.No.91 of 2020, on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, varying the order and decree passed in R.C.O.P No.1194 of 2010 dated 18.04.2016 on the file of XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.PRAYER in CRP No.2896 of 2021: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, against the decree and judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.379 of 2016, by the VII Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court at Chennai, modifying the fair and decreetal order dated 18.04.2016 passed in R.C.O.P No.1194 of 2010 by the XV Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai. For Petitioner in CRP.2346 &2347/2021 : Mr.V.Sivakumar for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam For Petitioner in CRP.2896/2021 : Mr.J.Hudson Samuel & Partners For Respondent : Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul , Senior Advocate in CRP.2346 &2347/2021 for Paul & Paul For Respondent : Mr.V.Sivakumar in CRP.2896/2021 for M/s.P.B.RamanujamCOMMON ORDERPage 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021These three civil revision petitions challenge the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.379 of 2016 and R.C.A.No.91 of 2020 dated 25.02.2021 in modifying the decreetal order of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.1194 of 2010 dated 18.04.2016. 2.For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant. 3.The landlord presented R.C.O.P.No.1194 of 2010 under Section 4 of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is a petition for fixation of fair rent. Pending the proceedings, the landlord had settled the property in favour of his son one D.Govindrajan. Hence, D.Govindrajan was impleaded as 2nd petitioner with the permission of the Court in M.P.No.448 of 2013 on 08.07.2014. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord examined himself as PW1, an engineer as PW2 and the newly impleaded 2nd petitioner as PW3. He marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the side of the tenants, one M.V.Ravindran was examined as RW1 and a sale deed under Ex.R1 was received. Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 20215.The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion as follows:i.that the building is a Type-II building.ii.It is aged about 30 years. iii.The extent is about 1656 sq. ft. iv.Basic amenities are available and hence 10% was awarded towards the same. v.The age of the building was calculated as 30 years; and vi. depreciation of 0.635 was ordered. 6. He fixed the market value of the petition premises at Rs.1 crore. On the basis of these findings, he fixed the fair rent at Rs.70,78,109/- per month. 7.Aggrieved by the same, the landlord and tenant preferred two appeals. The appeal by the tenant was numbered as R.C.A.No.379 of 2016 and the appeal preferred by the landlord was numbered as R.C.A.No.91 of 2020. 8.Two major disputes were raised before the Rent Control Appellant Authority, the first one being that the rent control petition had been filed against a proprietorship concern, but the order has been passed against an Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021incorporated company. The second issue being that Ex.P6 which had been relied upon by the 2nd petitioner - landlord showed the market value at Rs.20 lakhs and the Court ought to have fixed the value accordingly. 9.The learned Rent Control Authority agreed with the Rent Controller as regards the apportionment area, depreciation, basic amenities, type and age of the building. The appellate authority rejected both the pleas of the tenant and came to a conclusion that the plinth area of the building should be taken as 1558 sq. ft. as against 1656 sq. ft. He further held that being a settlement deed, it cannot be used for the purpose of market value when a sale deed for an adjacent property had been produced by the landlord. Consequent to reduction in extent, he allowed the appeal filed by the tenant reducing the fair rent to Rs.66,984/-. Hence the Revision.10. I heard Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul, Senior Counsel for M/s.Paul & Paul and Mr.V.Sivakumar for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates. 11.At the outset, I should point out that the scope of Revision under the Erstwhile Act, 18 of 1960 does not enable me to re-appreciate evidence. As Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021pointed out, this is a concurrent finding with respect to the age of the building, depreciation, value as well as the apportionment area. The dispute is as regards to who is the tenant and on value of the land. 12.When the rent control petition was filed, the tenant was shown as M/s.Farwood Industries Limited, represented by its proprietor Mr.M.P.Farook. During the course of the proceedings, the tenant had moved an application under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. He had described himself as M/s.Farwood Industries Limited represented by its Chairman M.P.Farook. The petition which had been numbered as M.P.No.337 of 2015. It had been dismissed holding that the tenant is the incorporated company namely M/s.Farwood Industries Limited. The tenant having held himself out before the Rent controller, as well as before the Rent Control appellate authority as an incorporated company: it is too late for the tenant to plead that the original tenant was Mr.M.P.Farook in his personal capacity and not the incorporated company. 13.Insofar as the value of the land is concerned, a settlement deed, that has been relied upon by the tenant, had already been produced by the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021landlord. It is a settlement deed executed by the first landlord in favour of the second landlord. The relationship between the first and the second landlord are that of father and son. In such a document, the parties give only a nominal value for the property. This is on account of the fact that the stamp duty that is being paid for the document is of a fixed value. I hasten to add I have not concluded in this order that a settlement deed cannot reflect the market value. In the facts and circumstances in this case, I am constrained to reach the conclusion that the value of the property given in the settlement deed cannot gain precedence over Ex.P4 dated 30.04.2008. 14.An other reason why I would prefer to go with Ex.P4 as done by the trial court and the lower appellate court is because Ex.P6 had come about pending the rent control petition. Post litem motam documents are normally not preferred by the Courts, because such documents are capable of being tampered to suit the convenience of the parties. 15.Further, the property is situated in a prestigious locality in Chennai, namely, the Lattice Bridge Road. It has several locational advantages. Therefore, fixation of Rs.1 crore by the trial Court when the sale deed under Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021Ex.P4 is for Rs.2 crores and above, cannot be found fault with. 16.In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere. All the above three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority stands confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.19.06.2025kasIndex: Yes / NoNeutral CitationTo.1.VII JudgeCourt of Small CausesChennai2. XV JudgeCourt of Small CausesChennaiV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.kasPage 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021C.R.P .(NPD) Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.20873 of 202119.06.2025Page 9 of 9
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 19.06.2025CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P .(NPD) Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.20873 of 2021Devarajan (Died)D.GovindrajanS/o.Devarajan ... Petitioner in CRP.2346 and 2347/2021Farwood Industries Ltd. Rep. By its ChairmanMr.M.P.Farook ... Petitioner inCRP.2896/2021Vs.Farwood Industries Ltd. Rep. By its ChairmanMr.M.P.Farook ... Respondent in CRP.2346 and 2347/2021Devarajan (Died)D.GovindrajanS/o.Devarajan ... Respondentin CRP.2896/2021COMMON PRAYER in CRP.No.2346 and 2347 of 2021: Civil Revision Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021Petitions are filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2021 in R.C.A.No.379 of 2016 and R.C.A.No.91 of 2020, on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, varying the order and decree passed in R.C.O.P No.1194 of 2010 dated 18.04.2016 on the file of XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.PRAYER in CRP No.2896 of 2021: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, against the decree and judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.379 of 2016, by the VII Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court at Chennai, modifying the fair and decreetal order dated 18.04.2016 passed in R.C.O.P No.1194 of 2010 by the XV Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai. For Petitioner in CRP.2346 &2347/2021 : Mr.V.Sivakumar for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam For Petitioner in CRP.2896/2021 : Mr.J.Hudson Samuel & Partners For Respondent : Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul , Senior Advocate in CRP.2346 &2347/2021 for Paul & Paul For Respondent : Mr.V.Sivakumar in CRP.2896/2021 for M/s.P.B.RamanujamCOMMON ORDERPage 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021These three civil revision petitions challenge the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.379 of 2016 and R.C.A.No.91 of 2020 dated 25.02.2021 in modifying the decreetal order of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.1194 of 2010 dated 18.04.2016. 2.For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant. 3.The landlord presented R.C.O.P.No.1194 of 2010 under Section 4 of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is a petition for fixation of fair rent. Pending the proceedings, the landlord had settled the property in favour of his son one D.Govindrajan. Hence, D.Govindrajan was impleaded as 2nd petitioner with the permission of the Court in M.P.No.448 of 2013 on 08.07.2014. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord examined himself as PW1, an engineer as PW2 and the newly impleaded 2nd petitioner as PW3. He marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the side of the tenants, one M.V.Ravindran was examined as RW1 and a sale deed under Ex.R1 was received. Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 20215.The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion as follows:i.that the building is a Type-II building.ii.It is aged about 30 years. iii.The extent is about 1656 sq. ft. iv.Basic amenities are available and hence 10% was awarded towards the same. v.The age of the building was calculated as 30 years; and vi. depreciation of 0.635 was ordered. 6. He fixed the market value of the petition premises at Rs.1 crore. On the basis of these findings, he fixed the fair rent at Rs.70,78,109/- per month. 7.Aggrieved by the same, the landlord and tenant preferred two appeals. The appeal by the tenant was numbered as R.C.A.No.379 of 2016 and the appeal preferred by the landlord was numbered as R.C.A.No.91 of 2020. 8.Two major disputes were raised before the Rent Control Appellant Authority, the first one being that the rent control petition had been filed against a proprietorship concern, but the order has been passed against an Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021incorporated company. The second issue being that Ex.P6 which had been relied upon by the 2nd petitioner - landlord showed the market value at Rs.20 lakhs and the Court ought to have fixed the value accordingly. 9.The learned Rent Control Authority agreed with the Rent Controller as regards the apportionment area, depreciation, basic amenities, type and age of the building. The appellate authority rejected both the pleas of the tenant and came to a conclusion that the plinth area of the building should be taken as 1558 sq. ft. as against 1656 sq. ft. He further held that being a settlement deed, it cannot be used for the purpose of market value when a sale deed for an adjacent property had been produced by the landlord. Consequent to reduction in extent, he allowed the appeal filed by the tenant reducing the fair rent to Rs.66,984/-. Hence the Revision.10. I heard Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul, Senior Counsel for M/s.Paul & Paul and Mr.V.Sivakumar for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates. 11.At the outset, I should point out that the scope of Revision under the Erstwhile Act, 18 of 1960 does not enable me to re-appreciate evidence. As Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021pointed out, this is a concurrent finding with respect to the age of the building, depreciation, value as well as the apportionment area. The dispute is as regards to who is the tenant and on value of the land. 12.When the rent control petition was filed, the tenant was shown as M/s.Farwood Industries Limited, represented by its proprietor Mr.M.P.Farook. During the course of the proceedings, the tenant had moved an application under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. He had described himself as M/s.Farwood Industries Limited represented by its Chairman M.P.Farook. The petition which had been numbered as M.P.No.337 of 2015. It had been dismissed holding that the tenant is the incorporated company namely M/s.Farwood Industries Limited. The tenant having held himself out before the Rent controller, as well as before the Rent Control appellate authority as an incorporated company: it is too late for the tenant to plead that the original tenant was Mr.M.P.Farook in his personal capacity and not the incorporated company. 13.Insofar as the value of the land is concerned, a settlement deed, that has been relied upon by the tenant, had already been produced by the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021landlord. It is a settlement deed executed by the first landlord in favour of the second landlord. The relationship between the first and the second landlord are that of father and son. In such a document, the parties give only a nominal value for the property. This is on account of the fact that the stamp duty that is being paid for the document is of a fixed value. I hasten to add I have not concluded in this order that a settlement deed cannot reflect the market value. In the facts and circumstances in this case, I am constrained to reach the conclusion that the value of the property given in the settlement deed cannot gain precedence over Ex.P4 dated 30.04.2008. 14.An other reason why I would prefer to go with Ex.P4 as done by the trial court and the lower appellate court is because Ex.P6 had come about pending the rent control petition. Post litem motam documents are normally not preferred by the Courts, because such documents are capable of being tampered to suit the convenience of the parties. 15.Further, the property is situated in a prestigious locality in Chennai, namely, the Lattice Bridge Road. It has several locational advantages. Therefore, fixation of Rs.1 crore by the trial Court when the sale deed under Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021Ex.P4 is for Rs.2 crores and above, cannot be found fault with. 16.In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere. All the above three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority stands confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.19.06.2025kasIndex: Yes / NoNeutral CitationTo.1.VII JudgeCourt of Small CausesChennai2. XV JudgeCourt of Small CausesChennaiV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.kasPage 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021C.R.P .(NPD) Nos.2346, 2347 and 2896 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.20873 of 202119.06.2025Page 9 of 9