Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an appeal filed by M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., the tenant, against a revisional order of the High Court of Madras regarding the fixation of fair rent for a premises occupied by the tenant. The landlords, Govindas Purushothamdas and Girdhari Govindas, sought to include an area of approximately 1752 sq.ft. described as platform and henpen in the plinth area for rent calculation. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority had excluded this area, determining the fair rent at Rs.22,403 per month. However, the High Court revised this amount to Rs.28,000 per month, leading to the tenant's appeal. The tenant's counsel argued that the High Court erred in including the henpen and platform as part of the building, while the landlords contended that the High Court was justified in its decision due to the lower courts' oversight of the landlords' admission regarding the total plinth area. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, particularly the definitions and principles for fair rent fixation. It concluded that the definition of 'building' under the Act was expansive enough to include all structures appurtenant to the main building. The court also addressed the High Court's revisional jurisdiction, affirming that it could intervene in concurrent findings of fact if they were found to be incorrect. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order and allowing the landlords' claim for increased fair rent.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Fair Rent Fixation - Inclusion of Structures - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Sections 2(2), 4 - The High Court included henpen and platform in the plinth area for fair rent assessment, rejecting the tenant's claim that these structures were not part of the building. The court held that the expansive definition of 'building' under the Act encompasses all structures appurtenant to the main building, thus justifying the High Court's decision. (Paras 3-4). B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Disturbing Concurrent Findings - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 25 - The High Court's revisional jurisdiction allows it to interfere with concurrent findings of fact if they are found to be incorrect or illegal. The court found that the lower courts had overlooked critical admissions in the pleadings, justifying the High Court's intervention. (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional order passed by the High Court suffers from any serious illegality warranting interference.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order to fix the fair rent at Rs.28,000 per month, allowing the landlords' claim and assessing costs at Rs.10,000.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction
- fair rent fixation
- definition of building
- concurrent findings of fact
