- (1.) BOTH these revisions are against the same judgment of the rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore. C. R. P. No. 3299 of 1991 is filed under Sec. 25 of the Rent Control Act, and the other Revision, namely, C. R. P. No. 489 of 1992 is filed under Art. 227 of the constitution of India.
(2.) THE material facts may be summarised as follows: revision petitioner is the landlord of the building. THEre was an earlier proceeding between the same parties for immediate demolition and reconstruction of the building which was then in existence. Even at the time when the present respondent was a tenant of the then building, he was occupying an area of 736 sq. ft. eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner was allowed, and the respondent herein filed a Rent Control Appeal before the appellate authority. THE appellate authority also confirmed the order, and a revision taken to this court also met with the same fate. Later, the respondent herein filed a Special leave Petition before the Supreme Court wherein the matter was settled. As per the terms of compromise, a consent order was passed on 25. 2. 1983 by the Supreme court to the following effect: (1) THE respondent and other tenants will handover possession of the portions occupied by them within three months. (2) THE petitioner shall, after demolition of the present structure, put up a new building on me same site within eighteen months from the date he is put in possession. (3) Identical are in the front portion of the first floor of the newly constructed building should be leased to the respondent i. e. , 736 sq. ft. (4) THE Rent Controller shall fix the rent for the premises notwithstanding the fact that in relation to a new building, he has no jurisdiction to fix the rent. Pursuant to the compromise, the petitioner demolished the old building and put up a new construction and the premises was named as Jewel Complex. Immediately after completion of construction, respondent informed the petitioner expressing their desire to occupy the portion earmarked for them in the new building. THE petitioner offered the portion at Rs. 6 per sq. ft. and requested the respondent to occupy it after executing a lease deed. THE respondent herein offered to pay a paltry sum of Rs. 1 (one rupee) per sq. ft. for the building. Since there was no meeting point regarding the rate of rent, but since they agreed before the Supreme Court to let out the building to the respondent, the respondent- Handloom Federation was allowed to occupy the building without prejudice to the petitioner' s right to get proper rent fixed in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court of India. In the application filed by the petitioner (landlord), it was further said that the building is situated in Raja Street, Coimbatore, which is a busy market place, and proper rent of the building has to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 8 or rs. 9 per sq. ft. After narrating the importance of the locality, the landlord wanted the rent to be fixed at Rs. 4,500 per mensem. In this connection, it may be noted that the application was filed not under Sec. 4 of the Rent Control Act, but the application was filed with the following cause title' Application for fixation of proper rent filed as per common order dated 25. 2. 1983 as modified by the order dated 2. 9. 1983 passed by the Supreme Court of India in s. L. P. Nos. 14761 of 1982 and 553 of 1983' . The extract which I made earlier in the compromise is dated 25. 2. 1983. But it is seen that the petitioner herein wanted clarification of the Order passed on 25. 2. 1983. As stated earlier as per Clause 5 of the compromise order,' The Rent Controller, Coimbatore, shall fix the rent of the premises notwithstanding the fact that in respect of new buildings he has no jurisdiction to fix the rent' . There was some dispute as to the interpretation of the word' rent' The confusion came in view of the fact that being a new building, under the rent Control Act, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction for fixation of fair rent. On a clarification sought for, the Supreme Court, on 2. 9. 1983, passed the following order: ' We modify the order dated February 25, 1983 by directing that the Rent Controller will fix the proper rent of the premises.' [italics supplied] A counter-statement was filed by the respondent herein that the application can be construed only as an application for fixation of fair rent, and since the Rent Controller has been authorised to fix the same, he has to act in accordance with the Rent Control Act and the rent fixed has to be taken as fair rent. In fact, a contention was also taken before the Rent controller, Coimbatore that the application which is not under Sec. 4 of the tamil Nadu Rent Control Act is not maintainable and the petitioner herein must be directed to amend the petition or file a fresh application under Sec. 4 of that Act. On merits also, they wanted the rent to be fixed at Rs. 1 per sq. ft. The Rent Controller, as directed by the Supreme Court, took oral and documentary evidence. On the side of the petitioner (landlord), exs. A-1 to A-28 were marked, and, on the side of the respondent Exs. R-1 to R-4 were marked. Oral evidence was also let in, and the Rent Controller fixed the proper rent [italics] at Rs. 3,670 per mensem.
(3.) RESPONDENT (tenant) was aggrieved by the order of the rent Controller. He filed R. C. A. No. 89 of 1989, on the file of Appellate authority, Coimbatore. An objection was raised by the petitioner (landlord)that the Authority has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, since the Rent controller has not fixed the rent under the Rent Control Act, but has fixed the proper rent in view of the direction by the Supreme Court. It. was further contended before the Appellate Authority that since it is a new building exempted from the purview of the Rent Control Act, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to fix the fair rent. It was further contended that since the supreme Court has directed the Rent Controller to fix the proper rent, the authority of the Rent Controller is only on the basis of the consent given by the parties and, therefore, the Rent Controller was acting as an Arbitrator, and not as Rent Controller under the Rent Control Act. Being an Arbitrator appointed by consent of parties, even though he has take the guidelines from the Rent Control Act, the order passed by him can be treated only as an Award passed by an Arbitrator and not as a decision rendered under the Rent Control act. Further, it was contended that the Supreme Court has directed the fixation of proper rent and not fair rent. Since the authority decided only the proper rent, no appeal lies to the appellate authority. The sum and substance of the contention is that no appeal can lie before the appellate authority since the order is not that of a Rent Controller under the Rent Control Act. The said argument was not accepted by the appellate authority on the ground that the Supreme Court has directed the Rent Controller to fix the rent and the Rent Controller should have take note of the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Rent Control Act. It is the very same Rent Controller who has got the jurisdiction to decide the fair rent and, therefore, the appeal is maintainable. After so holding that the appeal lies, the appellate authority set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with certain directions. It is that order which is challenged in this revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Sec,25. of the Rent Control Act ;