M.L. YACOB SHERIFF (D) BY LRS. versus RAJRANI DEVI

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1015 · Decided: 17-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M.L. Y ACOB SHERIFF (D) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
RAJRANI DEVI 
OCTOBER 17, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960-Sections 
2(2) and 4(4)-Fixation of fair rent-Inclusion 
of land over which 
construction raised by tenant-Courts below did not include such land/or 
fixation of/air rent or within built up land-Held, the word "building" in C 
Section 4(4) to be given same meaning "as the building let or to be let" 
in accordance with definition clause in Section 2(2)-Building .let out 
cannot be differently understood to include the building constructed by 
the tenant on the leased land-Land on which construction raised by the 
tenant be valued only as vacant land or appurtenant land or amenity D 
to the building and land let out by the landlord-Legislature did 
not contemplate valuation of building constructed by tenant for purpose 
of fixation of f..iir rent. 
The appellant-landlord wanted to include the portion of land, on 
which the tenant had raised construction seeking his permission, for E 
fixation of fair rent under Section 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings 
(Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. The courts below concurrently held 
against the appellant-landlord and did not include the land on which 
construction was raised by the tenant for fixation of fair rent or within 
the built up land. Hence this appeal. 
F 
The appellant-landlord contended that as per Section 4(4) of the 
Act "market value of the site on which the building is constructed" 
include both the lands on which the building let out stands as well as 
the buildings raised by the tenant; and thl't even though the building G 
constructed by the tenant may be excluded for valuation with the 
building let out, but the land on which construction has been raised 
has to be treated as a built up area for purposes of valuation of that 
land. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
1015 
H 
1016 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD 
1. It is abundantly clear that the word 'building' as 
mentioned in Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent 
Control) Act, 1960 is to be given the same meaning as cont.ained in the 
definition clause in Section 2(2) of the Act. The word 'building', 
therefore, wherever used in Section 4(4) including the provisos has to 
B be given the same meaning "as the building let or to be let." The word 
'building' used in Section 4(4) with the provisos therein cannot be 
differently understood to include with building let out, the building 
constructed by the tenant on the leased land. The legislature did not 
contemplate for the purpose of fixation of fair rent, valuation of 
C building constructed by the tenant. (1020-H; 1021-A-B] 
2. Wherever the word 'building' has been used, it has to be 
understood in accordance with the definition clause contained in Section 
2(2) to mean only vacant land on which the 'building let or to be let' 
stands. For the purpose of valuation of the building and land let out, the 
D construction put by the tenant on any portion of the vacant land leased 
cannot be taken into account. Similarly the land built up by the tenant 
can not be valued as built up portion of the leased land. [1021-D-E] 
C.S. Rajavelan v. A.N Parasurama Iyer, Vol. 83 Liiw Weekly Page 
E 524 and Sherwood Educational Society v. Hussainy Begum Namzie, 
(1985) 1 MLJ 205, atlirmed. 
HS. Lodha v. C. Ranganathan, AIR (1989) Madras 225, ~istin
guished. 
F 
. 3. Courts below were right in holding that in fixation of fair rent, 
neither the value of the building raised by the tenant on the leased 
vacant land nor the vacant land, as a built up area can be taken into 
consideration. Such land on which tenant has built upon with the 
permission of the landlord has to be treated for the purpose of 
G valuation of the leased premises, as vacarit land. Such land built upon 
by the tenant has to be valued only as a 'vacant land; or 'appurtenant 
land' or 'amenity', as the case may be, to the building and land 
included in the premises of the landlord. [1021-H; 1022-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5593-
H 5594 of 2002. 
ML Y ACOB SHERIFF v. RAJRANI DEVI [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 1017 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.2001 of the Madras High A 
Comt in C.R.P. Nos. 895/99 and 535 of 2000. 
A.A. Lawrance, Rajeev Sharma and M.C. Dhingra for the Appellant. 
S. Balakrishnan, Subramonium Prasad, S.N. Jha and R. Gopalakrishnan B 
for the Respondent. 
Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.