Skip to content


Mohamed Jamaludin Vs. T. Shayamala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P.(NPD).Nos. 3481 & 3626 of 2015 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2015
Judge
AppellantMohamed Jamaludin
RespondentT. Shayamala
Excerpt:
tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960 fixation of rent validity of petition was filed by respondent-landlady for fixation of fair rent rent controller fixed fair rent aggrieved over same, tenant preferred appeal and appellate authority also confirmed fair rent fixed by rent controller. court held rent controller took into consideration engineer's report while confirming fair rent taking into consideration value of land and other amenities, courts below rightly fixed fair rent there is no reason to interfere with concurrent findings of courts below so far as fair rent is concerned revision dismissed. (para: 8) (prayer: civil revision petitions filed under section 25 of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960 against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2014 made in r.c.a.nos.1 and 17 of 2011 on the file of the subordinate judge, tambaram confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2010 and 12.04.2010 made in r.c.o.p.no.11 of 2007 and 2 of 2007 on the file of the principal district munsif court, alandur. common order: 1. c.r.p.(npd).no.3481 of 2015 has been filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and decree passed in r.c.a.no.1 of 2011 on the file of the rent control appellate authority, subordinate court, tambaram, confirming the order passed in r.c.o.p.no.11 of 2007 on the file of the rent controller, principal district munsif court, alandur. 2. challenging the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2014 made in R.C.A.Nos.1 and 17 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2010 and 12.04.2010 made in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2007 and 2 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

Common Order:

1. C.R.P.(NPD).No.3481 of 2015 has been filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Subordinate Court, Tambaram, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

2. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.17 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Subordinate Court, Tambaram, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur, the tenant has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).No.3626 of 2015.

3. R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2007 was filed by the revision petitioner/tenant under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking permission to deposit the rent into the Court. The Rent Controller dismissed the Rent Control Original Petition, which was also confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.1 of 2011.

4. R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2007 was filed by the respondent/landlady for fixation of fair rent. Admittedly, the agreed rent was Rs.850/- per month. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,637/-. Aggrieved over the same, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.17 of 2011 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller.

5. This Court, while granting an order of interim stay, directed the tenant to pay Rs.1,637/- per month from August 2015 onwards on or before 10th of every succeeding English calendar month. Further, this Court permitted the respondent/landlady to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the petitioner to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.28 of 2011.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/tenant has been paying the monthly rents to the respondent/landlady at the rate of Rs.1,637/-.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also submitted that the tenant has been paying the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.1,637/-.

8. The Rent Controller, took into consideration Ex.P1 Engineer's report and the evidence of P.W.1, while confirming the fair rent of Rs.1,637/-. There is no dispute that the plinth area of the demised premises is 144 sq.ft. The petition premises was let out to the tenant for commercial purpose. The petition premises situate in Pallavaram. Taking into consideration the value of the land and other amenities, the Courts below rightly fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,637/- per month. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below so far as the fair rent is concerned.

9. With regard to the petition filed under Section 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is concerned, the learned counsel on either side submitted that the tenant has been making payment of the monthly rents directly to the respondent/landlady.

10. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant submitted that the tenant would continue to make the payment of the monthly rents directly to the landlady.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also submitted that the landlady is willing to receive the rent at the rate of Rs.1,637/- per month directly from the petitioner/tenant.

12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Courts below. In these circumstances, both the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

13. The respondent/landlady is permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by the petitioner/tenant to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

14. Since the R.C.O.P.No.28 of 2011 is pending for more than five years, I direct the Principal District Munsif, Alandur to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //