TMI Blog1976 (11) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and she had transferred the building in dispute to one Smt. Prema Wati w/o. Shri Madan lal (hereinafter to be referred to as the transferee) for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- under a Registered Sale Deed No. 413 of May, 1973. The total rent collected for the entire building is Rs. 390/- 2. On receipt of information in the prescribed form No.370 from the Registering Authority, Amritsar, the fair market value of the disputed property was enquired into by the Competent Authority. The matter was referred to the Valuation Cell. of the IT Department. Shri R.C. Kataria, Assistant Valuation Officer was deputed to enquire the fair market value of the disputed property, vide his report dt. 2nd Nov., 1973 the Asstt. Valuation Officer estimated the fair market value of the disputed property at Rs. 56,160/- on Rent Capitalisation Method by applying 16 as the Year's purchase factor. On the land and building method, the value of the disputed property was estimated by him at. Rs. 4,500/-. 3. Since the fair market value, as estimated by the Asstt. Valuation Officer exceeded by more than 15 percent of the stated consideration, i.e. Rs. 25,000/- the then Competent Authority concluded that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ethod the depreciated value of the property will not exceed Rs. 24,800 by taking the depreciated value of the superstructure at Rs. 15,800 and the value of the land at Rs. 8,000 at the rate of Rs. 100 per sq. Yard. The transferee denied that the fair market value of the property, in dispute in any case was is more than 25,000. The transferee also contended that the three tenants, namely, Chaman Lal, Shri Jaswant Singh and Shri Mulakh Raj did not offer more than Rs. 22,000 it is denied that their offer was of Rs. 45,000. The owner of the property in dispute namely, Smt. Chanan Wati was an ailing lady and therefore she wanted considerable amount for her treatment. This is why there was dire necessity to sell the property dispute. 5. The objections raised by the transferor need not be reproduced because they are not different terms and they are almost the same as have been raised by the transferor. The Competent Authority discussed the objections raised by the parties parawise, but he rejected all of them on the ground that he had reason to believe that the value of the property in dispute exceeded Rs. 25,000 and also the fair market value exceeded the apparent consideration by mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d if it is taken into consideration, the fair market value, keeping in view the annual letting value of Rs. 3,120 would work out to Rs. 37,440, which is in excess of the value shown by more than 25 per cent of the stated consideration. The Competent Authority further observed as follows:— "Hence by her own words, the fair market value of the impugned property was not less than Rs. 37,440 on the material date." 8. In our opinion, the above observation of the Competent Authority is wholly misconceived. The counsel for the transferee never means to say that for determining the fair market value, the year purchase factor at 12 should be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority. He simply referred to the view taken by the Tribunal in other cases. The simple case of the transferee and the transferor is that the building in dispute is governed by the Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the whole building is in occupation of the tenants. Since the protective tenants are in occupation of the building and as the eviction thereof is quite difficult under the law, the claim of the parties is that there is no ready buyer in the m ark et of the disputed property. This is why the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petent Authority, "none of the parties is giving out the true facts." In our opinion, the Competent Authority rightly disbelieved the version of the tenants that they ever made the offer of Rs. 45,000. We have already pointed out that these tenants are protective tenants and it is natural for them to make the offer as they could. It is highly improbable that the protected tenants were ready to pay even more price than the value of that property which did not suffer from any handicap. In these circumstances the version of the transferor appears to be correct that she approached the tenants and they were not ready to offer more than Rs. 22,000 and as such she resorted to outsiders. 10. The facts which can be highlighted in these appeals are that the property in dispute is admittedly governed by the Rent Restriction Act and the whole building is in occupation of the tenants, eviction of whom is protected under the statute. This is why we say that the property stands handicapped, in as much as, in the event of sale the actual possession thereof cannot be delivered to the purchaser. Only notional possession can be delivered to the purchaser. Delivery of actual possession is the deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
