IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :16.07.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD) No.888 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.7161 of 2006 1. C.Venkatesh 2. M.V.Vivekanand 3. Vidya Balachander ... Petitioners Vs. 1. M/s Tip Top Southern Bonanza rep. By its Partner Mr.Md.Kassim 2. B.Md.Kassim 3. Rahmath Kasim 4. M/s Vel Beds rep. By its Partner S.Kandasamy 5. S.Kandasamy 6. P.A.Shanmugam ... Respondents (R5 and R6 partners of the 4th respondent firm) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.12.2005 in R.C.A.No.111 of 2004 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore), confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 28.06.2004 in RCOP No.42 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif) Coimbatore. For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,S.C. for M/s AL.Ganthimathi For R4 to R6 : M/s M.Md.Ibrahim Ali For R2 & R3 : No appearance O R D E R Inveighing the order dated 19.12.2005, passed in R.C.A.No.111 of 2004 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore), confirming the order dated 28.06.2004 passed in RCOP No.42 of 2000 by the learned Rent Controller (I Addl. District Munsif Court), this civil revision petition is focussed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard both sides. 3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The revision petitioners herein being the landlords filed RCOP No.42 of 2000 for fixation for fair rent. On the side of the landlords, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the tenants, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked. Exs.C1 to C4 were marked as Court documents. Ultimately, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent from Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) per month to Rs.35,125/- (Rupees thirty five thousand one hundred and twenty five only) per month. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said fixation of fair rent, the landlords preferred RCA. In the course of the proceedings, it so happened that the landlords wanted to examine the vendor contemplated in Ex.P1 so as to prove it as per law even though it was marked before the Rent Controller without examining the said vendor, and Ex.P1, the sale deed which according to the landlords reflected the true value of the land. However, there are three respondents, namely R4 to R6 herein who got themselves impleaded as respondents in the appeal and they expressed their desire to file additional pleadings to contest the matter. Whereupon, the appellate authority felt that the matter could be remanded to the Rent Controller for considering the same. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the appellate authority in remanding the matter to the Rent Controller, the landlords preferred this revision on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: The appellate authority failed to take into account that he had no power to remand the matter. The appellate authority should not have allowed the respondents 4 to 6 herein to get themselves impleaded in the appeal. There was no privity of contract between those respondents and the landlords and in the proceeding to fix fair rent, the respondents 4 to 6 are not at all necessary parties and they are also not entitled to file any additional pleadings. The appellate authority should have accepted the fact that the landlords are entitled to a sum of Rs.78,000/- per month as fair rent. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus: The law as it stood at the time of hearing the appeal by the appellate authority was to the effect that if any sale deed had to be relied on for the purpose of highlighting the value of the land, the vendor had to be examined. With that in mind alone https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such a prayer was made before the appellate authority and now the law got changed. Mere marking of the registered sale deed would be sufficient and it is for the authority to take into consideration the over all circumstances and decide either to believe the document or not. At the appellate stage, the newly added parties would have no right to file additional pleadings and the appellate authority was not right in his approach in giving opportunity to those persons to file additional pleadings before the Rent Controller on the matter being remanded to him. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order of the appellate authority and pass suitable orders fixing fair rent in this revision itself. 6. Per contra, denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the contentions and arguments as put forth on the side of the landlords, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 would submit that the appellate authority, in a highly judicious manner intended to give opportunity to the respondents 4 to 6, because it is they who are in effective occupation of the premises and imaginarily the Rent Controller cannot be asked to pass orders based on some pleadings filed by the other respondents, who are not as of now interested in the demised premises. Accordingly, he submits that the revision has to be dismissed and the Rent Controller has to decide the matter as ordered by the appellate authority. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority in remitting the matter back to the Rent Controller with a direction that he should allow respondents 4 to 6 herein to file additional pleadings, and that he should give permission to the landlords to examine the vendor as contemplated in ExP.1 and thereafter, he should fix the fair rent? 8. At the outset, I would like to spotlight the fact that the law as it stands now, is that in order to prove the land value, any registered document could be relied on and it is not necessary that the vendor of the sale deed should be examined in order to make the document a reliable piece of evidence. It all depends on the facts and circumstances involved in a case. As such, the view taken by the appellate authority deserves to be set aside on that count. 9. In respect of the opportunity to be given to R4 to R6 herein to file additional pleadings, I would like to point out that such an opportunity is not necessary in a case where fixation of fair rent is involved. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners would appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly point out that in a matter of fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller, the primary duty is on the Court itself to fix the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fair rent taking into account the Engineer's Report coupled with the Commissioner's report and also the evidence if any, placed before the Court by the parties concerned. Rent Controller, even though nomenclatured as Court, it is a Tribunal for fixing the fair rent taking into account the prevailing market rate. The fact remains that before impleadment of respondents 4 to 6 at the appellate stage, the other respondents who were very much contesting the matter before the Rent Controller filed their counter. There is nothing to indicate that there is any conflict of interest between the respondents who contested the RCOP and the present respondents 4 to 6 who got themselves impleaded at appellate stage. Hence, I am of the view that giving opportunity to respondents 4 to 6 to file additional pleadings would further protract the proceedings and that would not be in the interest of justitia pie ponderous/in the interest of speedy justice. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners would implore and entreat that if the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority, once again the matter would get protracted, instead, this Court being the revisional Court can very well apply the law and fix the fair rent from the available materials. I would like to point out that such a course may not be tenable in the following precedents: i) 1997(II) CTC 631 (M.Mohamed Meera Sha, Partner, Goldern Oils vs. E.Hyder Ali) "11. ....... Sitting in revision, as held in the decision in Smt.Rajbir Kaur and another v. M/s.S.Chokosiri and Co.,AIR 1988 SC 1845, this court cannot interfere with the findings of fact unless there is perversity in the appreciation of evidence. To come to such conclusion, I take aid of the Apex court decision of Smt.Rajbir Kaur and another v. M/s.S.Chokosiri and Co.,AIR 1988 SC 1845 stated which reads as follows: "When the findings fact recorded by the courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent re-assessment of the evidence and to support a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the courts below. Therefore, in the instant case the concurrent finding as to exclusive possession of sub-tenant was not amenable to reversal in revision by the High Court." 12. In the decision in Dev Kumar (Died) through Lrs.v. Swaran Lata Smt.) and others, 1996(1) SCC 25 it is held as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The jurisdiction of the High Court under Sub- section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, would entitle the court to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate Authority and is thus much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to the well-known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. Unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority or unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come to the High Court will not interfere with the same". (ii) 2001(3) CTC 206 ( Karur Ghee Stores rep.by V.Periasamy vs. N.Palaniappan and another) "10. ................................ In this case, both the authorities have considered in detail all these aspects and have ordered eviction. Above all, one also has to see the extent to which this court can interfere under Section 25 of the Act. It has been repeatedly held the revisional jurisdiction is not akin to a full- fledged appeal and the Judge sitting in revision must be very careful about launching on a independent re- appreciation of the evidence and to substitute the findings of the Rent Control Authorities with another when the materials before the Court equally sustain the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below. Unless there is misapplication of law or a legally wrong approach or grave and substantial injustice, the Revisional Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Rent Controller ....................." This Court, while exercising its power under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu (Lease & Rent) Buildings Act cannot go into the factual aspects and for the first time give any finding relating to fixation of fair rent. Obviously and axiomatically, the Rent Controller was not wholesome in his approach in fixation of fair rent and it requires interference. Similarly, the appellate authority instead of entertaining additional evidence or applying the correct proposition of law, in fixing the fair rent, simply remanded the matter. In such a case, in the fitness of things it is just and proper to remit the matter back to the appellate authority, who is expected to adhere to the observations as found set out in this order and fix the fair rent by 15th September 2010, after hearing both sides as per law. I make it clear that if there is any additional evidence to be placed before the appellate authority by either of the parties, they are at liberty to do so and co-operate for speedy disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. gms To 1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, ( Rent Control Appellate Authority ) Coimbatore 2. The I Additional District Munsif (Rent Controller) Coimbatore 3. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to Ms. AL. Gandhimathi, Advocate, Sr. 52142 C.R.P.(NPD) No.888 of 2006 JRG (CO) kk 13/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/