SHAW WALLACE AND CO. LTD. versus GOVINDAS PURUSHOTHAMDAS AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 27-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
" 
A 
SHAW WALLACE AND CO. LTD. 
v. 
~ 
GOVINDAS PURUSHOTHAMDAS AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2001 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: Sections 54 
c 
and 25. 
Fair rent-Fixation of-lntetference with-In revisional jurisdiction-
Pennissibility of-Trial court and appellate court excluded "platfonn and 
henpen" from the plinth area and fixed fair rent accordingly-Tenant admitted 
the said "platfonn and henpen" as part of plinth area-High Court, in revision, 
D 
included the said "platfonn and henpen" in the plinth area and enhanced the 
fair rent-Legality of-Held: Revisional jurisdiction vested in the High Court 
under S.25 is wider than that vested in S.115 CPC High Court interfered with 
the concurrent findings as the. courts belaw ignored the admission of the 
tenant-Hence, High Court rightly modified the fair rent as assessed by courts 
E 
below-Code of Civil Procedure, S.115. 
The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 4 of the 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of 
fair rent of the building in occupation of the appellant-tenant. The Rent 
Controller and the Appellate Authority gave concurrent findings that 
F 
"platform and hen pen" were not part of the building and accordingly fixed 
the fair rent. However, the High Court, in revision, enhanced the fair rent 
on the ground that the. said ''platform and henpeu" were part of the 
> 
building. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the High Court 
G 
was right in interfering with the order of the appellate court since the 
courts below had overlooked the admission of the tenant that the "plat-
form and henpen" were part of the building. 
-,__ 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD : 1. For the purpose of assessment of fair rent not only the area 
134 
SHAW WALLACE AND CO. v. GOVINDAS PURUSHOTHAMDAS 
135 
on which the building is constructed, but also the land appurtenant to it 
A 
~. 
subject to the limit prescribed in the Statute and other structure appurte-
nant to the main building and also the amenities described in Schedule). of 
the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 are all to be 
taken into account. Therefore, the appellant's contention that the ''plat-
form and henpen" are not to be included in calculating the area for the 
B 
purpose of assessment of fair rent, siRce it cannot be used as a building, 
cannot be accepted having regard to the facts found in the case. [139-D] 
2.1. Revisionaljuris'diction vested in the High Court under Section 25 
of the Act is wider than that vested in Section 115 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908. The High C0urt is entitled to satisfy itself as to the c 
regularity of the proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any 
decision or order passed therein and if, on examination, it appears to the 
High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, 
reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass such orders accord-
ingly. (139-H; 140-A] 
D 
2.2. The High Court interfered with the orders passed by the courts 
below mainly for the reason that the courts below had ignored the specific 
averment made by the landlords in their pleadings that the "platform and 
henpen" are part of the building, which was admitted by the tenant to be 
A' 
true. [139-F-G] 
E 
2.3. The High Court, therefore, cannot be faulted for having inter-
fered with the judgments/orders of the courts below and modifying the fair 
rent as assessed therein. (140-D] 
MS. ?.a/zed v. K. Raghavan, [1999] 1 SCC 439, relied on. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1565 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.99 of the Madras High Court 
in C.R.P. No. 2317 of 1996. 
G 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Rajesh Malhotra and Dalip Kumar Malhotra for the 
__,,. 
Appellant. 
T.L.V. Iyer, P.S. Sudheer, for Mis K.J. John & Co. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J, Leave granted. 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
Whether the revisional order dated 24th December, 1999 passed by the 
High Court of Madras in C.R.P.No.2317 of 1996 suffers from any serious 
illegality which warrants interference by this Court is the question for deter-
mination in this case. Mis.Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., the tenant in occupation 
of the premises, has filed this appeal assailing the aforementioned o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.