C.P. PAULOSE v. V.R. OJESS

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2011-03-30
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is disposed; the Rent Control Court’s order fixing fair rent at Rs.1,500 per month is maintained but made effective from 10 February 2004 (not October 2000); arrears and eviction proceedings may proceed as per law; the court leaves open the possibility of future refixation.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; modification of the order with effect from 10.02.2004; rent fixed at Rs.1,500 per month; eviction proceedings for arrears may proceed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.P. PAULOSE

Respondents

V.R. OJESS

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. T. Joseph
• Joe Pollayil

Counsels for Respondents

• B. Krishna Mani
• Rajesh Vijayan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Rent Control Revision (R.C.R. No.130 of 2010) arising from a Rent Control Court order that fixed the fair rent of the petition building at Rs.1,500 per month with effect from October 2000, confirmed on appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The building, situated on a main road in Perumbavoor and in close proximity to the town’s court premises, is occupied by both parties’ advocates. The revision petitioner, C. P. Paulose, argues that Section 5 of Act 2/65 was not in force when the RCC fixed the rent, denying the court inherent jurisdiction to determine the fair rent; he also questions the quantum as excessive. The respondent, V. R. Ojess, contends that even if Section 5 was not then in force, the Appellate Authority relied on a Supreme Court decision (2004 (1) KLT 767) to justify the fixation, and that the commercial importance and locality warrant a fair rent higher than the contracted rent. The court rejects the jurisdiction challenge, holding that once the Supreme Court declares the law, it becomes binding and the RCC and Appellate Authority have co-equal powers. It also notes the basis from the cited authority is valid. The court modifies the order to fix the fair rent at Rs.1,500 per month, to operate from 10 February 2004 instead of October 2000. It leaves open the issue of arrears in eviction proceedings. The revision petition is disposed accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 5, Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965 (Act 2/1965)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Co-equal powers of Rent Control Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority
Principle that law declared by the Supreme Court binds and becomes binding law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Argued that Section 5 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965 was not in force when the Rent Control Court fixed the rent, denying inherent jurisdiction to fix fair rent; challenged the quantum as excessively high.

Contentions of Respondents

Contended that even if Section 5 was not in force, the appellate authority relied on a Supreme Court decision (2004 (1) KLT 767) and that Perumbavoor’s commercial importance and proximity to the court premises justify a fair rent higher than the contracted rent; noted that the matter could be revisited for refixation and that arrears proceedings were ongoing.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria	2004 (1) KLT 767	Positive	Cited to support that once the Supreme Court declares the law, it becomes binding and the statutory framework (S.5) can be applicable; the decision is used to justify the court’s view on the operation of the law.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933** **RCRev..No. 130 of 2010()** **------------------------------------** **RCA.NO. 8/2006 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR RCP.NO. 2/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR** **....................** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------** **C.P. PAULOSE, AGED 80, S/O. PAILY, CHITTAYATH HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, WORKING AS ADVOCATE, OFFICE ROOM NO.PMC XVII/253 (OLD NO. PMC IX/115) PERUMBAVOOR KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JOSEPH SRI.JOE POLLAYIL** **RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER** **--------------------------------------------------------------------** **V.R. OJESS, AGED 46, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, VIJAYAVILASAM, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30[th] day of March, 2011.** ## **O R D E R** ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.** Appellant is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision the judgment of the Rent Control Court Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court fixing the fair rent for the building in question at Rs.1,500/- per month with effect from October, 2000. The building is situated in a very prominent spot within the area of Perumbavoor Municipality. It is not disputed that the petition schedule building is just 20 feet away from Perumbavoor Court premises and is situated on a main road. ## **R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010** -:2:- 2. Revision petitioner is an advocate and he is practising his profession in the petition schedule building. Respondent is also an advocate by profession. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The legal ground which is argued seriously by Sri.Roshin Ipe Joseph, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that at the time when the Rent Control Court passed the order, S.5 of Act 2/65 by virtue of which only the Rent Control Court can fix the fair rent, was not in force. According to him the Rent Control Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to fix the fair rent at that time. Learned counsel would attack the judgment on the merits also. It was submitted that there is no justification for fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. ## **R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010** -:3:- The maximum rent which can be fixed as fair rent is Rs.500/-. 3. Sri.B.Krishnamani, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned judgment. He submitted that it may be true that at the time when the Rent Control Court passed the order, S.5 of the Act 2/65 was not in force. But the Appellate Authority passed the impugned judgment based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in **2004 (1) KLT 767(Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria** ). Mr.Krishnamani would submit that having regard to the commercial importance of the Perumbavoor town and the locality where the building is situated and the further circumstance that the building is situated in a spot which is having close proximity to Perumbavoor Court premises, what is presently fixed is lesser than the correct fair ## **R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010** -:4:- rent. The counsel requested that this Court sustain the impugned judgment and makes it clear that it will be open to the respondent to apply for refixation of fair rent at a higher rate. Learned counsel would also complain that the revision petitioner has kept even the contracted rent in arrears. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions and scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We are not impressed by the submissions of Sri.Roshin that the Rent Control lacked inherent jurisdiction to fix fair rent. It is not disputed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally held that the Rent Control Court is having jurisdiction and once the Hon'ble Supreme Court declares the law, what is declared is law as it always has been. In ## **R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010** -:5:- our view the Rent Control Court did have the jurisdiction to fix fair rent. At any rate there cannot be any quarrel that when the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed the impugned judgment at a time when it had been finally held that S.5 is in operation. Under the statutory scheme the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority have co-equal powers and the Appellate Authority is the final Court on facts. We repel the legal arguments raised by Sri.Roshin regarding the lack of jurisdiction. 5. We will now examine the merits of the matter. The building in question is situated in Perumbavoor Town. Perumbavoor is an ancient Municipality of the State. It is situated at Aluva-Munnar road which is one of the ancient main roads in the State. Perumbavoor is a also a commercial centre. We have Courts of various ## **R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010** -:6:- levels at Perumbavoor and we are told that it is in evidence that the building in question which abuts a main road is situated at just 20 feet away from the Court complex at Perumbavoor. It is very clear to our mind that Rs.1,500/- per month fixed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is the fair rent of the building. 6. At the same time we are of the view that the Court below was not justified in fixing fair rent with effect from October 2000. According to us it would have been more proper if fair rent was fixed with effect from 10.2.2004. Therefore we modify the order of the Rent Control Court as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The order fixing the fair rent will be operative with effect from 10.2.2004 only. The R.C.R. is disposed of with ## **R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010** ## -:7:- the above modification. 7. As regards the comp of the learned counsel for the respondent that rent is in arrears, we are told that the landlord has already initiated eviction proceedings. It is always open to the landlord to pursue those proceedings. **Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE.** **Sd/-N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE.** ul/- [ True copy ] _P.A. to Judge._