Charitable exemption under rent control law may be waived; fair-rent fixation upheld absent valuation irregularity.

Section 29 exemption under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was treated as a benefit available to eligible buildings, not as an automatic bar to fair-rent proceedings. The landlord did not establish dedication of property or funds for public charitable purposes, any trust obligation, or other legal preconditions for exemption, and the exemption could be waived by the beneficiary. The fair-rent fixation was also upheld because the authorities relied on the tenant's own engineering evidence, made a reasonable estimate of depreciation, and adopted a reasoned market value on comparable material; no material irregularity or illegality was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenant could resist the fair-rent proceedings on the ground that the landlord was a public charitable institution entitled to exemption from the Rent Control Act, and whether such exemption could be waived; (ii) Whether the order fixing fair rent suffered from any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference.

Issue (i): Whether the tenant could resist the fair-rent proceedings on the ground that the landlord was a public charitable institution entitled to exemption from the Rent Control Act, and whether such exemption could be waived.

Analysis: The exemption under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was treated as a benefit conferred on eligible buildings and not as a compulsory exclusion operating irrespective of the owner's stance. The available material did not establish that the respondent had dedicated property or funds for public charitable purposes, or that it had created a trust obligation or otherwise satisfied the legal preconditions for exemption. Since the exemption was a privilege, it could be waived, and it was not permissible to thrust that benefit upon the respondent against its stand.

Conclusion: The proceedings were maintainable, and the exemption plea failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the order fixing fair rent suffered from any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference.

Analysis: The revisional court found that the authorities below had substantially relied on the tenant's own engineering evidence for built-up area, construction rate, and basic amenities. On depreciation, the authorities had made a reasonable estimate in the absence of scientific evidence. On land value, the appellate authority had rejected an unreliable sale instance and adopted a reasoned market value on the basis of comparable material. No material irregularity or illegality was shown in the assessment of construction cost or land value.

Conclusion: The fair-rent fixation did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions were liable to be rejected as the exemption defence was untenable and the fair-rent determination was found to be sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exemption conferred as a benefit may be waived by the beneficiary, and a revisional court will not interfere with fair-rent fixation absent material irregularity or illegality in the valuation process.

---