2014 (4) TMI 1299 - HC - Indian Laws

No consensus-id-idem on actual rent in 1995 in respect of the suit premises - matter referred to a Third Judge - HELD THAT - Since the figure arrived at by the trial court in the range between Rs. 14/- and Rs. 18/- per sq. ft per month is with reference to the rent at the R.N Mukherjee Road property of Rs.20 per sq. ft per month, on the basis of the additional evidence, the suit premises on Kiran Shankar Ray Road which has its entrance on Old Post Office Street should have commanded roughly 20 per cent more on account of rent than the comparable R.N. Mukherjee Road property at the relevant time. The rent of the R.N. Mukherjee Road Property was Rs.20 per sq. ft per month. The rent in respect of the suit premises in 1995 is thus assessed to be 20 per cent in excess of the value of rent at the R.N. Mukherjee Road property of Rs. 20; or, Rs.24 per sq. ft per month. The question posed in the reference is answered accordingly by holding that the rent in 1995 in respect of the suit premises would have been Rs.24 per sq. ft per month. In accordance with the mandate of Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, the majority view of the Judges who have heard the relevant point in the appeal is recorded as Rs.24 per sq. ft per month being the rate of rent in the suit premises in the year 1995. The reference is disposed of.

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the actual rent in 1995 for the suit premises.
2. Admissibility and impact of additional documents introduced at the appellate stage.
3. Methodology for assessing fair and reasonable rent.
4. Scope of reference under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Actual Rent in 1995:
The primary issue was to ascertain the "actual rent in 1995 in respect of the suit premises." The trial court initially decreed the rent at Rs. 14.50 per sq. ft. per month based on the evidence provided by both parties. The plaintiff challenged this determination, while the defendant cross-objected, questioning the maintainability of the suit under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Division Bench had a split opinion, leading to the reference under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent.

2. Admissibility and Impact of Additional Documents:
The plaintiff introduced two additional documents during the appeal, which were chargeability assessment slips for properties at 1A, Old Post Office Street and 21, Rajendra Nath Mukherjee Road. These documents suggested that a comparable property on Old Post Office Street would command a higher rent than one on R.N. Mukherjee Road. The defendant contested the admissibility of these documents, citing Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code, arguing that the documents were not in existence at the time of the original decree. However, the court clarified that the term "admission" in Order XLI Rule 27(2) implies "receipt" or "introduction," and once admitted, the "admissibility" pertains to the quality or veracity of the documents, which was not questioned by the defendant.

3. Methodology for Assessing Fair and Reasonable Rent:
The trial court's methodology involved comparing the suit premises with properties on R.N. Mukherjee Road and Old Post Office Street. The trial court scaled down the rent for the R.N. Mukherjee Road property to determine the rent for the suit premises. The plaintiff argued that the trial court's methodology was flawed, as the additional documents indicated that properties on Old Post Office Street would command a higher rent. The court found that the trial court's assumption that a property on Old Post Office Street would fetch substantially less rent than one on R.N. Mukherjee Road was not substantiated by any cogent ground. The additional documents suggested that the rent for the suit premises should be 20% higher than that of the R.N. Mukherjee Road property, leading to an assessment of Rs. 24 per sq. ft. per month.

4. Scope of Reference under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent:
The court emphasized that the scope of the reference under Clause 36 is limited to the point of difference, which in this case was the actual rent in 1995 for the suit premises. The court clarified that the methodology for determining the rent should be scrutinized to ensure it is in accordance with the law and not based on personal perception. The appellate court's role is to assess whether the decision-making process and the decision rendered are legally sound.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the rent in 1995 for the suit premises should be Rs. 24 per sq. ft. per month, based on the additional documents and the revised methodology. The majority view of the Judges who heard the relevant point in the appeal was recorded as Rs. 24 per sq. ft. per month. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →