# K. C. NAMBIAR v. THE IV JUDGE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSFS, MADRAS & ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 906
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-08-18
- **Bench:** J.C. SllAll, Actisg C.J, \'. Ra~Ias\\'Ami, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-c-nambiar-v-the-iv-judge-of-the-court-of-small-causfs-madras-ors-4729
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

M11dr11s Ruildmgs (lease & Rent Cv11tro/) Act, 1960, s. 4(3)(b)(i)
(ii)-''Cost of cons1n1c11011' if orig11u1/ cost or autrket \'alue at the date
of enac/lnent of the Act.
By '· 4 of the MaJras Buildings (Lea-;e & Rent Co11trol) Act, 1960
A
B
the fair rent for any non-residential building is to be fixed on the total
C
cost of such building and uo<ler sub-s. 3(b) the total cost is to consist of
three componcnls : ( i) the cost of con~truction ai; calculated "according
to such rates tor such classes of non-residential building as may be pre.i;-
cribed, le~s depreciation
at 'Such rate~ ac; may be prescribed"; (ii)
tb.e
market v::i.luc uf th:it portion of the site or \1hich
the
non-residential
buiJding is con'itructed, and (iii) .such allowances not 1.:xcccding 25% of
the cost of constructiC'n as may be made for locality features of arcbitec¥
tural intcre-;t. acce~sibilitv 1(1 nlarket,
nc;1rnco;;s ro a raihvav station and
D
other amenities i!~ m;!y -be prescribeJ.
The State Govcrriment
framed
rules prc;cribing rates for the calculation of the cost Of construction of
different classes of non-residential buildingo;;.
The appellant, a lenant of a non-residential
building
applied to the
High Court of Madras for a y,.·rit of prohih11ion
against
the Controller
reslraining him from pro..:ccding \\'ith an application for fixation c:Ji fair
rent.
He contended lh<it
the cxpre ... -sion
.. co<;t
of
construction"
in
E
s. 4(3)(h)(i) meant the cost of the original
constn1c1l'on
and not the
market value of the structure at the date of enactment of the Act
and
therefore :he rules \i..-ere incon.,istcnt \Vith the intention and ?.mbit of the
Act : 111c Hir.h Cou•. t di:-n1is!-:ed the app!ic;!tion.
Allowing the appeal,
llELO: 'The C'<pression "co.:;t of con-.1rue1ion" in suh-s. 3(h) (i) when
used in juxtap0<;ition \\'ith the cxprcs-;i(1n "market \':tlue" in suh-s. J(b)(ii)
is used to denote not the n1arkct VJ!UC• hut the cost of the original cons1''
truction.
·rhe Legi·daturc could not have used l\\'O different exprCMionc;
for provirlTng that the market \'aluc of the building and the market nlue
of lhe site sh;dl form con1poncnrs of the total co:il of a building:.
If the
~xpres5ion "co~t
of const:-uction" j.:; equated
\Vith
the market value it
v.-ould necessarily ir.clude thi.' spl'Cial ;idv~ntagc'\ of the situation
of the
huildinl!, its amenilie'\ :ind ~rchitectural feature'\ and there i" no reason
v.-hy these allo,\·ancc'\ should hl' included f\\-·icc. 0:1c1 .. "" part of component (i) and ;ig:ain <l'• pan of con1roncn1. (iii).
1\~ain, if the meanint of
G
the c'rrc~sion "cCK! of Ct)nsrr11c:ion" \VC:-c "market \';1]11~·· it \vould me~n
the market \';i_lue having: n .. ~ard to rhe market c0ndi1ions of rC'al propertv
''hich m.1v go on ch:inging yeJr after Yl':-tr.
Rut the .State h;id accept<.'d
hy r. 12 that the co-;t of con..rruction V.'<h ;i fixed qu;intity rclat~d to the
d;tte on \\hich the Ac! "'a' hrought in:c force. [912 n-C. G-11]
CIVIL APPEi.ATE JuRISDICT.ON:
Civil Appeal No. 2225 of
1966.
H
Appeal from the jud!!ment and order dated August 6, 1965 of
the Madras Hi~h Court in Writ Appeal No. 356 c{ 1964.
I.
'
t
K, C. NAMBIAR v. JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT (Shah, Ilg. C.f)
907
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
K. K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
Lily Thomas, for respondent No. 3.
S. Govind Swaminathan, Advocate-General for the State of
Tamil Nadu, E. S. Govindan and A. V. Rangam, for respondent
No. 8.

## Text

K. C. NAMBIAR
v.
THE IV JUDGE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSFS,
MADRAS & ORS.
August 18, 1969
[J.C. SllAll, ACTISG C.J., \'. RA~IAS\\'AMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
M11dr11s Ruildmgs (lease & Rent Cv11tro/) Act, 1960, s. 4(3)(b)(i)
(ii)-''Cost of cons1n1c11011' if orig11u1/ cost or autrket \'alue at the date
of enac/lnent of the Act.
By '· 4 of the MaJras Buildings (Lea-;e & Rent Co11trol) Act, 1960
A
B
the fair rent for any non-residential building is to be fixed on the total
C
cost of such building and uo<ler sub-s. 3(b) the total cost is to consist of
three componcnls : ( i) the cost of con~truction ai; calculated "according
to such rates tor such classes of non-residential building as may be pre.i;-
cribed, le~s depreciation
at 'Such rate~ ac; may be prescribed"; (ii)
tb.e
market v::i.luc uf th:it portion of the site or \1hich
the
non-residential
buiJding is con'itructed, and (iii) .such allowances not 1.:xcccding 25% of
the cost of constructiC'n as may be made for locality features of arcbitec¥
tural intcre-;t. acce~sibilitv 1(1 nlarket,
nc;1rnco;;s ro a raihvav station and
D
other amenities i!~ m;!y -be prescribeJ.
The State Govcrriment
framed
rules prc;cribing rates for the calculation of the cost Of construction of
different classes of non-residential buildingo;;.
The appellant, a lenant of a non-residential
building
applied to the
High Court of Madras for a y,.·rit of prohih11ion
against
the Controller
reslraining him from pro..:ccding \\'ith an application for fixation c:Ji fair
rent.
He contended lh<it
the cxpre ... -sion
.. co<;t
of
construction"
in
E
s. 4(3)(h)(i) meant the cost of the original
constn1c1l'on
and not the
market value of the structure at the date of enactment of the Act
and
therefore :he rules \i..-ere incon.,istcnt \Vith the intention and ?.mbit of the
Act : 111c Hir.h Cou•. t di:-n1is!-:ed the app!ic;!tion.
Allowing the appeal,
llELO: 'The C'<pression "co.:;t of con-.1rue1ion" in suh-s. 3(h) (i) when
used in juxtap0<;ition \\'ith the cxprcs-;i(1n "market \':tlue" in suh-s. J(b)(ii)
is used to denote not the n1arkct VJ!UC• hut the cost of the original cons1''
truction.
·rhe Legi·daturc could not have used l\\'O different exprCMionc;
for provirlTng that the market \'aluc of the building and the market nlue
of lhe site sh;dl form con1poncnrs of the total co:il of a building:.
If the
~xpres5ion "co~t
of const:-uction" j.:; equated
\Vith
the market value it
v.-ould necessarily ir.clude thi.' spl'Cial ;idv~ntagc'\ of the situation
of the
huildinl!, its amenilie'\ :ind ~rchitectural feature'\ and there i" no reason
v.-hy these allo,\·ancc'\ should hl' included f\\-·icc. 0:1c1 .. "" part of component (i) and ;ig:ain <l'• pan of con1roncn1. (iii).
1\~ain, if the meanint of
G
the c'rrc~sion "cCK! of Ct)nsrr11c:ion" \VC:-c "market \';1]11~·· it \vould me~n
the market \';i_lue having: n .. ~ard to rhe market c0ndi1ions of rC'al propertv
''hich m.1v go on ch:inging yeJr after Yl':-tr.
Rut the .State h;id accept<.'d
hy r. 12 that the co-;t of con..rruction V.'<h ;i fixed qu;intity rclat~d to the
d;tte on \\hich the Ac! "'a' hrought in:c force. [912 n-C. G-11]
CIVIL APPEi.ATE JuRISDICT.ON:
Civil Appeal No. 2225 of
1966.
H
Appeal from the jud!!ment and order dated August 6, 1965 of
the Madras Hi~h Court in Writ Appeal No. 356 c{ 1964.
I.
'
t
K, C. NAMBIAR v. JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT (Shah, Ilg. C.f)
907
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
K. K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
Lily Thomas, for respondent No. 3.
S. Govind Swaminathan, Advocate-General for the State of
Tamil Nadu, E. S. Govindan and A. V. Rangam, for respondent
No. 8.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, Ag. C.J. The Legislature of the State of Madras enacted
the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1960.
Section 4 of the Act (insofar as it is relevant) provides :-
"(l) The Controller shall, on application by the
tenant or the landlord of a building and after holding
such inquiry as the Controller thinks fit fix the fair
rent for such building in accordance with the principles
set out in sub-section (2) or in sub-section (3), as the
case may be, and such other principles as
may be
prescribed.
(2)
(3)(a) The fair rent for any non-residential building
shall be at nine per cent, gross return per
annum on the total cost of such building.
(b) The total cost referred in clause (a)
shall
consist of-
(i) the cost of construction as calculated
according to such rates for such classes
of non-residential building as may be
prescribed less the depreciation at such
rates as may be prescribed;
(ii) the market value of that portion of the
site on which the non-residential building
is constructed;
and shall include such allowances as may be made for
considerations of locality in which the non-residential
building is situated, features of architectural interest
accessibility to market, nearness to the railway statio~
and such other amenities as may be prescribed and of
the purpose for which the non-residential building is
used.
Provided that such allowances
shall not exceed
twenty-five per cent. of the cost of construction as calculated in the manner specified in sub-clause (i)".
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl 970] I S.C.L
Section 34 confers upon the State Government power to mal::e
rules to carry out the purposes of the Act.
Pursuant to the
authority conferred by the Act, the State Government has published rules.
Rules 11 to i 4 deal with classification of nonresidential buildings, calculation of the cost of construction of
the different classes
of non-residential b1.1ildings, allowance for
amenities in respect of non-residential buildings and calculation
of depreciation of non-residential
buildings.
Rule
11
provides:-
r. 11-"(l) Non-residential buildings shall be classified into two categories, namely:-
(i) Factories and godowns; and
(ii) other non-residential buildings.
(2) The non-residential buildings belongin~ 10 the
category specified in sub-rule (I )(ii) shall be classified
into four different classes according to the classifications
laid down in rule 8 in respect of residential buildings".
r. 12-"(l) "i11e cost of the construction of nonresidential buildings belonging to the category specified
in ru!e I l; I )(i) shall be calculated at the rate of 62
naye Paise per cubic foot of the cubical content of the
building.
(2) The cost of construction of the different classes
of non-residential buildings belonging to the category
specified in rule 11 (l )!ii) shall be calculated at the rates
specified below :-
CJass I -
Ground Floor
.. Rs. 16 per square foot of rlin1h area.
First floor
.. Rs. J 3 per square foot of plinth area.
Second Floor
.. Rs. 12 per square fool of plinth area.
Class JI -
Ground Floo:-
.. Rs. 13 per square fool of plinth area.
Firs1 Floor
.. Rs. 10 per square foot of plinrh area.
Second Floor
, , Rs. 9 per square foot of plinlh arta.
Gass JJ[ -
Singlc-Storcycd
. , '!:ts. JO per square foot of plinth arta.
Gass IV -
Singlc-Storcycd
, . Rs. S per square foot of plinth area.
Nore.-ln case of every additional floor higher up,
the rate per square foot shall be one rupee less than the
rate per square foot for the floor immediately below."
r. 13-"When calculating the cost of construction
of nryn-residcntial buildings, allowances shall be made
for the following amenities in addition to those specified in section 4(3)-
(1) air-conditioning;
(2) lifts;
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
K. c. NAMBI.'R v. JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT (Shah, Ag. C.J)
90&
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(3) electric fans;
(4) tube-lipts;
(5) number of electric points;
(6) fans;
(7) ventilators;
(8) electric pump for water;
(9) fliish-otits;
(10) fixed wash-basins;
(11) stair-cases;
(12) out-houses;
(13) cattle-Sheds;
(14) gard~ or vacant ground appurtenant to the
ouildfug enjoyed by the tenant; and
(15) usl(fructs of trees, if any, enjoyed by the tenant".
r. 14-·~e depreciation of buildings shall be calculated at the rates specified in Schedule II".
Dr. K. C. Nambiar is the tenant of 2/137, Purasawalkam
High Road, Madras at a monthly
rental of Rs. 181-50.
He
conducts a nursing home in the premises.
The landlord of the
premises applied· to the Controller claiming that fair rent of the
premises in the occupation of Dr. Nambiar be fixed at Rs. 2,575
per month. Pr .•iNambiar applied to the High Court of Madras
for a writ of prQhibition against the Controller from proceeding
with the applic~on for fixation of fair rent.
He pleaded that
the "rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the
power vested in them by s. 4 were inconsistent with the intention
and ambit of the) Act" and were on that account invalid.
The
petition was heard by a single Judge with several other petitions
in which the validity of the rules was challenged. The learned
Judge passed an order dismissing the petition, and the order was
• confirmed in appeal by the High Court. Dr. Nambiar has appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court.
It was urged on behalf of Dr. Nambiar before the
High
Court that the expression "cost of production" in sub-s. (3) of
s. 4 means the cost of the original construction and the landlord
was not entitled to claim that the fair rent be fixed on the basis
of cost which may be estimated to be incurred for reproducing
a similar buildin,g at the date of the application or the date on
which the Act was brought into force.
The learned Single
Judge rejected the contention.
He observed that "the statutory
sense in which tlie word 'cost' or the phrase 'total cost' is used
in sub-s. (2)(a) i$ not the original cost or the original expenditure incurred for the construction of the building.
'Total cost'
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] l s.c.R.
in s. 4 ( 2) is a composite concept consist mg of. ....... three
components ........ out of which the. cost of construction for the
purpose of arriving at the total cost is to be calculated according
to the rates prescribed for each class of building prescribed and
not the initial expenditure incurred in the construction".
The
learned Judge proceeded then to observe:-
"Normally, the notion of depreciation is a subsequent
fall in value or reduction of worth due to deterioration
arising from age, use and other caus.es and it is deducted
from the last value of the building as reduced by pre·;ious
depreciation.
But the depreciation calculated at the
prescribed rates is under s. 4(2) (b) to be deducted from
the cost of the constructio~ as calculated according to the
rates prescribed. When the cost of construction is
arrived at on such basis, the depreciation at the prescribed rate is to be deducted therefrom backwards. This
mode of deduction of depreciation is no doubt a reverse
process. But there seems to be nothing strange in such
a manner of arriving at the cost of construction .... "
The High Court in appeal observed :
"In the first place we are of the opinion that the language of s. 4 itself is clear that what the legislature has
in mind on the <.!Uestion of the cost of construction, is
what has been specified under the rules and Sch. I. The
very fact thats. 4(2)(b)(i) provides that the cost of
construction is to be according to such rates for such
class of residential buildings as may be prescribed shows
that it is not actual cost of construction, but it is the cost
of construction which can be detennined on the basis of
rates as may be spei:ified. The words "such rates for
such classes of residential buildings as may be prescribed"
clearly carry with it the conception of the fixing of a
statutory rate which may or may not have any relation
to or connection with the actual investment. Again the
provisions of allowance with regard to considerations cl
locality, features of architectural interest and such other
matters for which allowance is made at a percentage not
exceeding I 0% of the cost of construction is to be determined as on the date when the Act came intc force and
not the actual original investment. . . .
We seen
no
warrant to hold that the Legislature intended to make a
vital difference between the valuation of the site, which
is the market value, and the cost of construction of the
building which is the original cost of construction or investment as contended for by Mr. Nambiyar."
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
..
K. C. NAMBJAR v. JUDJI, SMALL CAUSES COURT (Shah, Ag. C.J.)
911
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
These observaticm interpreting sub-s. (2) of s. 4 apply also to the
interpretation of suJ>.s. ( 3) of s. 4, because the relevant provisions
in regard to determination of the cost of construction of nonresidential buildings are identical.
By sub-s. ( 1) of s. 4 the Controller is invested with authority
to fix fair rent of. buildings in respect of which an application is
made in accordaince with the principles set out in sub-ss. (2) & (3)
and such other principles as may be prescribed. Under sub-s. (3)
fair rent o.f any non-residential building is to be computed at nine
per cent of the gross return per annum on the ~otal cost of such
building and the total cost of the building is to consist of three components-(i) the,cost of construction; (ii) the market value of the
portion of the site on which the nom-residential building is constructed; and (iii) such allowances not exceeding 25% 0f the cost
of construction as may be made for locality, features of architectural interest, acce~sibility to market, neamess of a railway station
and other amenities as may be prescribed.
On behalf of Dr. Nambiar it is urged that the "cost of constructirm" only means cost incurred for constructing the building when
it was put up, ·and the cost. of such additions as rnay have been
subsequently made. On behalf of the landlord and the State of
Madras it is urged that the expression cost of construction means
the cost of reproducing a similar building at the date on which the
Act was brought into force and therefore in determining fair rent
the Controller must determine for th-o purpose of s. 4 ( 3 )(b) ( i)
the cost of such reproduced building according to rules in that behalf and deduct therefrom the depreciation at the prescribed rate.
In other words, it is intended t<i determine under sub-s. (3) (b) (i)
the market value of the structure at the date of the enactment of
the Act.
The Legislature has used in sub-section (3)(b) (i) the expression "cost of construction" and in sub-s. (3) (b) (ii) "market value".
It is difficult to accept that the Legislature has used two different
expressions for providing that the market value of the building and
market value of the site shall form components of the total cost of
a building.
In Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edn.,
at p. 415
-"cost" it is stated "means the amount originally expended in
performing a particular act or operation, or for production or construction, as of a building." There is, not infrequently great difference between the cost of an article and the value of an article. Cost
of an article in terms of money is what the owner has expended to
obtain it; the value of the article is ordinarily its market value in a
market actual or hypothetical. It may be conceded that the expression "cost" is sometimes used as meaninir the value of an article.
But the expression "cost of construction" in sub-s. 3(b) (i) for
determining the first component when used in juxtaposition with
Ll5Sup.CJ/69-14
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19 70] I S.C.R.
the expression "market value" in sub-s. 3(b) (ii) is, in our judgment, used to denote not the mJrket value but the cost of the
origiaal construction. There are inherent indications in els. (i).
(ii) and (iii) of sub-s. (3) which go to prove that the expression
"cost of construction" was not intended to mean the market value.
The expression "cost of building" includes not only the expenses incurred for constructing the building, but also the value of advantages which the site of the building offers, such as accessibility to
markets, nearness to a railway station, special amenities, and featu~es of architectural interest. If the expression "cost of construction" is equated with the "market value", it would necessarily include the special advantages of its situation, amenities and its
architectural features. But the Legislature has provided for including in the cost of the building apart from the cost of constructiQ!l.
the value cf allowances for favourable situation, amenities and
architectural features. That is a ground for holding that the value
of allowances is not included in the cost of building.
Amenities such as air-conditioning, lifts, electric fans, tubelights, number of electric points, fans, ventilators, electric pump
for water, flush-outs, fixed wash-basins, stair-cases, out-houses,
cattle-sheds, garden or vacant ground appurtenant to the building
enjoyed by the tenant and usufructs of trees, if any, enjoyed by the
tenant will also be included in the cost of building as allowances.
But many of these amenities would be taken into account in determining the market value of the building. The learned AdvocatcGeneral appearing on behalf of the State of Madras was unable to
explain why the Legislature in the determination of the cost of
building for arriving at the fair rent. if the view expressed by the
High Court is correct, enacted that these allowances should be included twice, once as part of component (i) and again as pact of
component (iii).
The learned Trial Judge has rightly pointed out 1hat in determining the cost of construction, if the contention of the State be
accepted in determining the first component of the cost of building
A
B
c
D
E
F
will be the cost of reproducing the building at a given time reduced
by the depreciation computed on the life of the building-a process
which reverses the normal method cf making allowances for deprcG
ciation. Again, if the meaning of the expression "cost of construction" were "market value" it would mean that the market value
having regard to the market conditions of real property which may
go on changing year after year.
But the State has accepted by r.
12 the cost of construction is a fixed quantity related to the date on
which the Act was brought into force. Therefore by prescribing
II
the rate at which the cost of construction is to be determined under
r. 12, the expression "cost of construction" is neither the original
cost, nor the value of the building at a given time during the lifo of
,.
K, C. NAMBIAR v. JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT (Shah, Ag. C.J)
91 3
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
the Act, but an attbicial value related to the assumed cost of construction on the date on which the Act was enacted.
The Advocate-General, however, submitted that in respect of
old buildings it may not be possible to ascertai:n what the cost of
construction of a particular building was. But that argument cannot support an int~rpretation which the plain words used by the
statute do not warrant. Counsel for the appellant pointed out,
that P.W.D. rates ih respect of different classes of buildings for
man'y years are available, and it should not be difficult for the Controller, having regard to the P .W.D. rates which would form a fairly
reliable basis for determining, what the cost of construction of a
particular type of huildi:ng was. n.e argument that the "cost of
construction" of a buildicg is to be such cost as may be prescribed,
iavites the answer I that a provision which, without any guidance,
leaves it to the executive authority to fix whatever that authority
thinks is the cost Of cons(rucdon, is invalid on the ground of excessive delegation. If the Legislature bas sought to confer authority
upon the executive to fix the rates and to call them cost of construction, the. Legisla(Ure has abdicated its authority in favour of the
executive which in law is !l!Ot permissible. This however was not
the argument which was advanced before the High Court, for it was
the case of the State that the rates specified in the rules were rates
which were actually prevailing in 1961 in respect of different classes
of buildings.
It was also urged that al.Jowing depreciation at the rates prescribed in Sch. II to the rules might unduly depreciate the value of
the properties and the landlord may not get a fair return. But it
has been a common feature of rent restriction legislation all over
India that the landlord is not allowed the benefit of unearned increment on the value of his construction. That is why in practically
every statute relating to rent restriction legislation rent is pegged
down to either a fixed period or to standard rent which is generally
related to the cost of construction originally incurred.
We are accordingly unable to agree with the High Court that
the Legislature intended by the use of the expression "cost of construction" and. "market value" used in els. (i) and (ii) of sub-s. (3)
the same concept of determining the value of a building reproduced
at the date when the Act came into force and reduced by depreciation at the prescribed rates.
Some arguinent about the true meaning of Note (2) to Sch. II
whkb pr0vides for the.standard rates of depreciation was raised before us. The language used in that Note, even as explained by the
illustrations, is obscure.
We are in this case not called upon to determine the meaning
of that clause. If the expression "cost of construction" in sub-s.
t
914
SuPRBIE COuRT REPORTS
(1970] l SC.R
(3) (b) (i) means the cost of c011S1ruction of the building as originally erected with such additions as may be required to be made for
subsequent improveme,nts, r. 12 which prescribes the rates at which
the cost of construction is to be computed plainly goes beyond the
terms of the section.
The appeal is allowed. The order dismissing the petition is discharged. The Controller will determine the fair rent accorJing to
the provisions of the Act uninfluenced by r. 12. The appellant wi:;
be entitled to his costs in this Court and the High Courl.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
A
ll