Skip to content


T. Namberumal Chetty and Sons Vs. State of Madras Represented by the Accommodation Controller and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1964)1MLJ439
AppellantT. Namberumal Chetty and Sons
RespondentState of Madras Represented by the Accommodation Controller and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the only point upon which these proceedings have been pressed, for admission, by learned counsel for revision petitioner (landlords) appears to me to be so clearly concluded by the explicit language of the statute, that i have no hesitation in dismissing these proceedings in limine. the revision proceedings accordingly fail and are dismissed in limine......sections 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii) of the act, the area to be taken into consideration, as far as the market value under section 4(2)(b)(ii) is concerned, is, in the very words of that subsection 'that portion of the site on which the residential building is constructed.' to argue from the fact that 'building' is defined in section 2(2)(a) of the act as inclusive of 'the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building ', and that in consequence, the entire area inclusive of the compound should be taken into consideration, for purposes of ascertaining the market value under section 4(2)(b)(ii), is to fly in the face of the explicit language used by the legislature. the legislature has not said that the market value of 'building' is to be assessed. it has laid it down.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M. Anantanarayanan, J.

1. These are related Revision Proceedings, sought to be instituted by Messrs. T. Namberumal Chetty & Sons (landlords) from the order of the Courts below, with regard to the fixation of fair rent. The only point upon which these proceedings have been pressed, for admission, by learned Counsel for revision petitioner (landlords) appears to me to be so clearly concluded by the explicit language of the statute, that I have no hesitation in dismissing these proceedings in limine.

2. As far as I am able to understand the relevant provisions of Sections 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, the area to be taken into consideration, as far as the market value under Section 4(2)(b)(ii) is concerned, is, in the very words of that subsection 'that portion of the site on which the residential building is constructed.' To argue from the fact that 'building' is defined in Section 2(2)(a) of the Act as inclusive of 'the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building ', and that in consequence, the entire area inclusive of the compound should be taken into consideration, for purposes of ascertaining the market value under Section 4(2)(b)(ii), is to fly in the face of the explicit language used by the Legislature. The Legislature has not said that the market value of 'building' is to be assessed. It has laid it down that the market value has to be ascertained, not with reference to the ''Building' but exclusively with reference to 'that portion of the site on which the residential building is constructed' (italics mine). I have no doubt, therefore, in coming to the conclusion that the Courts below were fully justified in taking the plinth area of the actual structure or residential building alone into consideration in working out the formula of fair rent as provided for in the Act and under the Rules. The revision proceedings accordingly fail and are dismissed in limine.


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