## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 117 OF 2015**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2015 IN RCA NO.4 OF 2013 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RC(OP) NO.28 OF 2010 DATED 30.11.2012 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:**
- **1 A.PONNUSWAMY CHETTIAR, AGED 87 YEARS, S/O.ARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR, THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM.**
- **2 P.SWAMINATHAN**
- **AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.PONNUSWAMY CHETTIAR, THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM.**
- **3 P.SHANMUGHA SUNDARI AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.SUBHAYYA, THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM.**
- **4 P.RADHALEKSHMI AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM.**
- **5 P.BABY AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.NALLAPERUMAL, THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU**
2
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015
## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.LATE SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SURESH BHAVAN, KUTTIPURATHU VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KOLLAM.**
- **2 SURESH KUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SURESH BHAVAN, KUTTIPURATHU VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KOLLAM.**
- **3 SUBHASH KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SURESH BHAVAN, KUTTIPURATHU VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KOLLAM.**
- **4 PRIYA,**
- **AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.LATE SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SURESH BHAVAN, KUTTIPURATHU VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KOLLAM.**
**BY ADVS.**
**SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE SMT.MAYA T S SMT.K.A.SUNITHA(K/347/2003)**
**THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..159/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
3
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 159 OF 2015**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2012 IN RC(OP) NO.28 OF 2010 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT , KOLLAM CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.5 OF 2013 DATED 21.02.2015 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 1, 2 AND 4:**
- **1 VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O LATE. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN, KUTTIPURATHU VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KOLLAM**
- **2 SURESH KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN, KUTTIPURATHU VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM , KOLLAM**
- **3 PRIYA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O LATE. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN, KUTTIPURATHU VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM , KOLLAM**
**BY ADVS. SMT.MAYA T S SMT.K.A.SUNITHA(K/347/2003)**
4
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND COUNTER**
## **PETITIONER 3:**
- **1 A.PONNUSWAMY CHETTIAR, AGED 86 YEARS, S/O ARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM 690 530**
- **2 P. SWAMINATHAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O PONNUSWAMY CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM 690 530**
- **3 P. SHANMUGHA SUNDARI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O SUBBAYYA, RESIDING AT THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM 690 530**
- **4 P. RADHALEKSHMI AGED 54 YEARS, W/O MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, RESIDING AT THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM 690 530**
- **5 P. BABY, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O NALLA PERUMAL, RESIDING AT THAI VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM 690 530**
- **6 SUBHASH KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O LATE. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN, KUTTIPURATHU VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM , KOLLAM 690 530 BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU**
**THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, ALONG WITH RCRev..117/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
5
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015
## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.**
**-----------------------------------------------**
## **R.C.Rev. Nos.117 and 159 of 2015 -----------------------------------------------**
**Dated this the 4[th] day of January, 2023**
## **ORDER**
## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.**
These revision petitions arise from R.C.(OP) No.28 of 2010 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kollam. The said proceedings was one instituted under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) for fixation of the fair rent in respect of the premises involved in the matter. The Rent Control Court allowed the application in part and the decision was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. Both the landlords as also the tenants are aggrieved by the decisions aforesaid and hence these revision petitions. Among the revision petitions, R.C.R. No.117 of 2015 is by the landlords and R.C.R. No.159 of 2015 is by
6
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015
the tenants.
2. Subject matter of the proceedings is a premises having an area of 800 sq.ft. The same was leased out by the predecessor of the landlords to the predecessor of the tenants on 03.10.2001 at a monthly rent of Rs.850/-. The subject premises is part of a double storeyed building facing Paikkada road, a busy market place within the limits of Kollam Corporation. The subject premises is the rear portion of the building facing Paikkada road. Access to a portion of the building is from the Paikkada road and access to the subject premises is from a byline running through one side of the building having a width of around 2.5 meters. The premises is not electrified and its roof is partly made of tiles and partly made of asbestos sheets. The premises is used by the tenants as a godown. The application for fixation of fair rent was instituted in the year 2010 alleging that the premises would fetch rent at least at the rate of Rs.18 per sq.ft. The stand taken by the tenants in the proceedings, however was that the rent that is being paid by them is fair and reasonable.
3. On behalf of the landlords, one among them gave
7
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015
evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A7 are the documentary evidence on the side of the landlords. One among the tenants gave evidence as DW1. The Village Officer and the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the proceedings were also examined on the side of the tenants as DW2 and DW3 respectively. The documentary evidence on the side of the tenants is Exts.B1 to B5. Ext.C1 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner and Ext.C1 (a) is the Mahazar prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. On an appraisal of the materials on record, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent of the premises at Rs.8/per sq.ft. and the said decision of the Rent Control Court was affirmed in appeal. As noted, both the landlords and tenants are aggrieved by the decisions of the authorities below.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Placing reliance on Exts.A2, A3 and A5 rent deeds, the learned counsel for the landlords submitted that the fixation of fair rent for the premises at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.ft. is grossly inadequate. The learned counsel for the tenants, on the other hand, submitted, placing reliance on the report and Mahazar prepared by the Advocate Commissioner that the fixation of fair rent made at
8
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015
the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.ft. is excessive and cannot be said to be the fair rent of the premises.
6. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. We have also perused the records.
7. In exercise of the power under Section 20 of the Act, the jurisdiction of this Court is only to ensure that the decisions of the authorities below do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. This Court cannot, therefore, re-appreciate the evidence on record in order to come to a different conclusion on any factual issues, unless the finding can be said to be either erroneous or perverse. It has been held by the Apex Court in **Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh** , (2014) 9 SCC 78 that only findings of facts which have been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence, or findings which are based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence, or findings which, if allowed to stand, would result in gross miscarriage of justice, alone could be said to be erroneous or perverse warranting correction under Section 20 of the Act.
9
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015
8. Let us examine the correctness of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on the basis of the principles aforesaid. There is no dispute in this case as regards the status of the parties. Even though there was some dispute between the parties as regards the area of the tenanted premises, the same is not seen pursued after the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the proceedings that the area of the premises is 800 sq.ft. The only subsisting dispute pertains to the fair rent payable. As noted, the subject premises is part of a building facing Paikkada road within the limits of Kollam Corporation. It has come out that the building is an old structure. The fact that Paikkada road is a busy commercial area in the town is not in dispute. Admittedly, the subject premises does not have any access from Paikkada road. It has access only from a bylane running through the side of the building having a width of about 2.5 meters. Similarly, there is no dispute to the fact that the premises is not electrified and it has been taken on lease by the tenants to be used as a godown. There is also no dispute to the fact that the roof of the premises is partly made using tiles and partly made using asbestos sheets. Exts.A2
10
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015
and A3 are rent deeds in respect of two other buildings facing Paikkada road, of which one is executed on 13.10.2011 and the other on 15.12.2010. The rent stipulated in the said documents is Rs.30/- per sq.ft. The courts below concurrently found that insofar as the tenanted premises has no access from Paikkada road and the same is not being used for any trading activity for which the premises covered by Exts.A2 and A3 documents are taken on lease, the fair rent of the premises cannot be fixed based on Ext.A3 rent deed. Ext.A5 is a rent deed executed on 09.03.2006 in respect of a building situated almost 500 meters away from the subject premises. It has come out that the same is also a premises having direct road access. In the absence of any material indicating the rent prevailing at the time of institution of the proceedings in respect of identical or similar premises, according to us, the authorities below cannot be found fault with for having arrived at the conclusion, on an appraisal of the evidence on record, that the fair rent payable in respect of the premises would be Rs.8/- per sq.ft. The findings aforesaid cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse on any grounds whatsoever. There is therefore no illegality, irregularity or
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015 11
impropriety in the decisions of the authorities below, warranting interference of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.
The revision petitions, in the circumstances, are devoid of merits and are, accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
**P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.**
Sd/-
**C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.**
YKB
