@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.@mdashThe revision petitioner is tenant and the revision is filed against the rejection order dated 27.2.2001 in
Memo SR. No. 1628 of 2001 in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.
2. The respondent/landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 for fixation of fair rent in respect of the premises bearing door No. 8-A and 8-B,
Boat Club Road, Adayar, Madras measuring 9 grounds comprising of ground floor and first floor occupied by the revision petitioner as tenant
under the respondent. The Rent Controller (XII Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras after enquiry fixed the fair rent at Rs. 6,810/- per month as
per order dated 20.4.1987. Not satisfied with the fair rent so fixed, the landlady, viz., the respondent herein filed R.C.A. No. 194 of 1988 and the
tenant, viz., the revision petitioner filed R.C.A. No. 5 of 1988 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority (V Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras,
revised the fair rent at Rs. 8,967/- per month as per common judgment dated 10.11.1989. The landlady filed C.R.P. No. 1107 of 1991 and the
tenant filed C.R.P. No. 2750 of 1990 and this Court as per common order dated 29.2.1996 directing to fix the value of the vacant site properly as
per the Full Bench decision of this Court in H.C.Lodha - v. - Dr.C.Ranganathan, etc., reported in 1989-1 Law Weekly 137 and in further
directing the site and one half of the built up area is to be added for the purpose of fixation of market value and the remaining extent is to be
considered as amenity and setting aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, remanded the matter back to
the Rent Control Appellate Authority for disposal accordingly by affording opportunities to both parties for adducing further evidence and also
directing to dispose both the appeals before 31.8.1996. After remand, the landlady has withdrawn the appeal R.C.A. No. 194 of 1988 filed by
her on 3.7.1996 and on the same day, the tenant also has withdrawn the appeal R.C.A. No. 5 of 1988 filed by him.
3. Thereafter, the tenant filed memo subject matter of this revision to take up the R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 for fresh disposal as per the order
of this Court dated 29.2.1996. The Rent Controller, in view of the direction of this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2750 of 1990 and 1107 of 1991
directing the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose the Rent Control Appeals R.C.A. Nos. 5 of 1988 and 194 of 1988 and in view of such
specific direction, rejected the memo SR. No. 1628 filed by the tenant to take up the R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 for fresh disposal and the order
is under challenge in this revision.
4. In the meantime, The landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 2427 of 1999 for fixation of fair rent on 4.12.1999 to the petition premises at Rs. 6,71,910/-
per month stating the facts of the previous proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 in which the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 6,810/- per month
which was refixed in the appeal R.C.A. No. 194 of 1988 at Rs. 8,967/- per month and the remand of the matters to the Rent Control Appellate
Authority by this Court as per order dated 29.2.1996 in C.R.P. Nos. 2750 of 1990 and 1107 of 1991 and the withdrawal of both the appeals,
viz., R.C.A. No. 5 of 1988 filed by the tenant and R.C.A. No. 194 of 1988 filed by the landlady on 3.7.1996 and further stating that the tenant is
paying the rent at Rs. 6,810/- per month as the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 and also stating that after
withdrawal of R.C.A. No. 5 of 1988 filed by the tenant and R.C.A. No. 194 of 1988 filed by the landlady, there is no fixation of fair rent for the
petition property which is situated just opposite to Hotel Park Sherton and in a posh locality.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant vehemently contended that inasmuch as already fair rent has been fixed to the property in
R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 at Rs. 6,810/- per month and which is now paid by the tenant and since there is no change of circumstances, fair rent
cannot be fixed again and it can be fixed in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 filed by the landlady which was contested by filing counter by the revision
petitioner, taking into consideration the various factors that prevailed at the time of filing of R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984. The learned counsel
further submitted that since R.C.O.P. No. 2427 of 1999 has been filed u/s 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act
(hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"") and not u/s 5 of the Act claiming that there have been some additions, improvements or alterations carried out
at the expenses of the landlady in which case alone changing fair rent is admissible and so the landlady cannot claim the fair rent fixed more than
what is fixed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 and in any event, the fair rent is to be fixed taking into consideration of the
various factors that was prevalent at the time of filing of the said R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 and as per the directions issued by this Court in
C.R.P. Nos. 2750 of 1990 and 1107 of 1991 when remanding the matter. This Court in Sha Dhanraj Chunilal - v. - C.Vedachalam Chetti
reported in 99 LW 672 has held that unless the landlord proves that he has effected any improvements or addition to the building or provided
additional amenities in response to the request of the tenant, he cannot file another petition for fixation of fair rent and the second petition for
fixation of fair rent will not lie. This decision is relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant in support of the contention put-
forth by him.
7. The facts are not in dispute, viz., in the petition R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 filed by the landlady for fixation of fair rent in respect of the
premises bearing door No. 8-A and 8-B, Boat Club Road, Adayar, Madras measuring 9 grounds comprising of ground floor and first floor
occupied by the revision petitioner as tenant, after enquiry, fair rent was fixed at Rs. 6,810/- per month as per order dated 20.4.1987 and in the
appeals R.C.A. No. 5 of 1988 filed by the tenant and R.C.A. No. 194 of 1988 filed by the landlady, the fair rent was further enhanced at Rs.
8,967/- as per common judgment dated 10.11.1989. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant filed C.R.P. No. 2750 of 1990 and the landlady not
satisfied with fair rent so enhanced by the Rent Control Appellate Authority filed C.R.P. No. 1107 of 1991 and this Court as per common order
dated 29.2.1996 remanded the matter back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for disposal in accordance with law affording opportunities to
both parties to adduce further evidence directing the site and one half of the built up area is to be added for the purpose of fixation of market value
and the remaining extent is to be considered as amenity following the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in H.C. Lodha Vs. Dr. C. Ranganathan
and Others, . Further, this Court set aside the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well the orders of the Rent Controller. After such
remand, the landlady has withdrawn the appeal R.C.A. No. 194 of 1988 filed by her on 3.7.1996 and the tenant has also withdrawn the appeal
R.C.A. No. 5 of 1988 filed by him on the same date.
8. Thereafter, the landlady has filed R.C.O.P. No. 2427 of 1999 on 4.12.1989 u/s 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent to the petition premises at
Rs. 6,71,910/- per month. The tenant resisted the said petition on various grounds by filing counter on 27.6.2000 and mainly that the petition
R.C.O.P. No. 2427 of 1999 filed u/s 4 of the Act is not maintainable, in view of the fact, already fair rent was fixed to the petition premises in
R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 at Rs. 6,810/- per month by stating the facts which led to the filing of C.R.P. Nos. 2750 of 1990 and 1107 of 1991
by both parties and the remand of the matter back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in which both the appeals R.C.A. Nos. 5 of 1988 and
194 of 1988 have been withdrawn by the tenant as well the landlady and further stating that the fair rent so fixed in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984
by the Rent Controller at Rs. 6,810/- per month is now paid as rent and which has been received by the landlady. It is also stated in the counter
that after such fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984, further increase in fair rent is permissible only if addition,
improvement or alteration has been carried out at the expense of the landlady or and if the building continues to be in the occupation of the tenant
at his request u/s 5 of the Act.
9. Thereafter, the tenant has filed the memo on 22.1.2001, subject matter of this revision before the Rent Controller, who already fixed the fair rent
at Rs. 6,810/- per month in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984, seeking to take up the said R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1994 for fresh disposal, in view of
the appeals R.C.A. Nos. 5 and 194 of 1988 remanded by the High Court as per order in C.R.P. Nos. 2750 of 1990 and 1107 of 1991 filed by
the landlady as well by the tenant, have been withdrawn. The memo was rejected by the Rent Controller stating that only the appeals R.C.A. Nos.
5 and 194 of 1988 were remanded to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for fresh disposal as per the directions issued by the High Court in
C.R.P. Nos. 2750 of 1990 and 1107 of 1991. That rejection order is under challenge in this revision
10. After remand of the appeals by this Court, not only the landlady has withdrawn the appeal R.C.A. No. 194 of 1988 filed by her, but also the
tenant has withdrawn the appeal R.C.A. No. 5 of 1988 filed by him aggrieved against the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No.
3284 of 1984. If the tenant has not withdrawn the said appeal, fair rent could have been fixed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in
C.R.P. Nos. 2750 of 1990 and 1107 of 1991, especially, when this Court set aside the orders of the Rent Controller as well the orders of the
Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, after withdrawing the appeal filed by the tenant, it is not open for him to file memo on 22.1.2001
before the Rent Controller for fixing fair rent as per the directions issued by this Court, in that, no directions were issued by this Court to the Rent
Controller. Therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the memo filed by the tenant. Merely because the tenant is now paying the rent at
Rs. 6,810/- per month as fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984, it is futile for the tenant to contend that such fair
rent fixed can be changed only in accordance with Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Further, the tenant can
also take all such defence in R.C.O.P. No. 2427 of 1999 filed by the landlady u/s 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent and which submissions will
be considered in the said proceedings. Therefore, considering all these aspects, it cannot be said that the rejection of memo, subject matter of this
revision, by the Rent Controller is erroneous for interference by this Court. In that view, the order of the Rent Controller is to be confirmed.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. The order dated 27.2.2001 made in Memo SR. No. 1628 of 2001 in
R.C.O.P. No. 3284 of 1984 passed by the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is confirmed. Consequently, the petition C.M.P. No. 4117
of 2004 is also dismissed.
