MISS LIZA ARULANANDAM versus SMT. A.S. SULOCHANA

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 11-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MISS LIZA ARULANANDAM 
v. 
SMT. A.S. SULOCl!ANA 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 
B 
[M.H. KANIA, K.N. SAIKIA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article IJ6-Special leave-Findings 
of facts-Based on consideration of evidence-Not to be interje~ed with. 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: Sec-
tion 4--Fixation of fair rent-Cost of construction-Market value-
Determination of-As on which date. 
The appellant-tenant was in occupation of a double storeyed 
building on a monthly rent ofRs.I70. The respondent-landlady flied an 
application under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent 
Control) Act, I960 for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller took 
note of the fact that I/3rd portion of the building was being used for 
residential purpose and the rest of the building for non-residential 
purpose, namely, for running a school. He also appointed an Engineer 
as Commissioner to evaluate the total cost of the building. The Commis-
sioner adopted the rates prevalent in the Public Works Department and 
submitted his report. On the basis of the Commissioner's report, the 
Rent Controller worked out the cost at Rs.I,SI,820. Accordingly, the 
fair rent for the said premises was arrived at Rs.ISIS per month at 12 
per cent gross return. Since the respondent-landlady had conttned her 
claim for the enhancement of fair rent to Rs.I,000 only, the Rent Con-
troller fixed the fair rent at Rs.I,000. On appeal, the order of Rent 
Controller was affirmed by the Court of Small Causes. 
On a revision being preferred, the High Court agreed with the 
valuation adopted and determined the fair rent on the basis that I /3rd 
of the premises was used for residential purpose and 2/3rd for non-
residential purpose, and, as per sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of 
the Act, worked out the rent at 9 per cent and I2 per cent respectively 
on the cost of construction arrived at. The High Court fixed the fair 
rent at Rs.1391.67 per month. It confirmed the fair rent of Rs.I,000 as 
was fixed hy the Rent Controller and as confined to by the Respondent-
landlady. 
This appeal, hy special leave, is against the High Court's order. It 
394 
MISS LIZA v. SMT. SULOCHANA 
395 
was contended that the cost of the building and its market value as 
A 
worked out was illegal, fallacious and untenable. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent 
Control) Act, 1960 prescribes the principles on the basis of which the 
fair rent is to be fixed. In the light of those principles, the evidence 
adduced by the parties was considered by the Rent Controller, the 
appellate court and the High Court and they found that the fixation of 
the fair rent was much in excess of the claim made by the Respondent· 
landlady. Since she confined her claim to Rs.1,000 per month, the 
courts below have fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,000. Therefore, on the 
findings of facts based on consideration of the evidence, this 1;9urt 
cannot interfere and come to its own conclusion, The finding is neither 
vitiated nor illegal warranting interference. [210B-C] 
2.1 Sub-section 4 of Section 4 of the Act, clearly indicates that the 
total cost of construction referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3) shall 
consist of the market value as on the date of application for fixation of 
the fair rent. [209C] 
2.2 It is obvious that at the time when this Court rendered its 
decision in Nambiar's case there was no provision in Section 4 as to the 
date on which the cost of construction was to be determined, and Rule 
12 provided the manner in which the fixation of the fair rent has to be 
made. The subsequent amendment brought on the statute in 1973, by the 
Amending Act 23 of 1973, has incorporated sub-section (4) in Section 4 
which amplified the date of application as the starting point to fix 
market value. As such the fair rent has been rightly determined by the 
courts below. [2090-E; HJ 
K. C. Nambiar v. The IV Judge of the Court of Small Causes, 
Madras & Ors., [1970] l SCR 906, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2228 
of 1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 45. 7. 1980 of the Madras 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 1150 of 1979. 
Anant Palli and E.C. Agarwala for the Appellant. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
V. Balachandran and K. Vi jay Kumar for the Respondent. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court .was deliver

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.