High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-02-08RCRev.241/2017 dismissed; RCRev.318/2017 allowe...

Elizabeth, Jacob George, Titus George, Sam George and Sheeba George v. Alex Varghese (RCRev.241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017), High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:RCRev.241/2017; RCRev.318/2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Annie John
Judgment Date: 2019-02-08
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court held that RCRev.241/2017 will be dismissed and RCRev.318/2017 allowed in part. It modified the fair rent to Rs.10 per sq ft from 20-02-2017, treating the area as 357 sq ft, resulting in approximately Rs.3,570 per month from that date. The rent of Rs.3,000 per month would remain from the date of the petition until 20-02-2017.
Final Disposition: RCRev.241/2017 dismissed; RCRev.318/2017 allowed in part; fair rent enhanced prospectively from 20-02-2017 to Rs.10 per sq ft for 357 sq ft (approx Rs.3,570 per month); Rs.3,000 per month remains valid up to 20-02-2017.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Elizabeth
Jacob George
Titus George
Sam George
Sheeba George
Alex Varghese

Respondents

Elizabeth
Jacob George
Titus George
Sam George
Sheeba George
Alex Varghese

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.S. Hariharaputhran
• Dipu James
• George Mathew
• M.D. Sasikumar
• Sethuram Dharmapalan
• Sunil Kumar A.G

Counsels for Respondents

• S.V. Balakrishna Iyer (Sr.)
• Saju J Panicker

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are two linked Rent Control revision petitions before the Kerala High Court (RCRev.241/2017 and RCRev.318/2017) challenging a Rent Control Appellate Authority order that fixed the fair rent of the plaint schedule shop at Rs.3,000 per month. The revision petitioners are Elizabeth, Jacob George, Titus George, Sam George and Sheeba George; the revision petitioner in RCRev.318/2017 is Alex Varghese, the landlord. The Rent Control Court had dismissed the petition; the Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent at Rs.3,000 per month relying on Ext.A6 (a rent deed for the adjacent shop in the same building) and noting comparable data. The High Court held that interference in revision is limited (rent determination is a factual finding) and examined the methodology and evidence. It recognized inflation and cost variations as relevant factors in fair rent determination, citing Edgerferus v. Abraham Itticheriya. On considering the evidence, the Court modified the fair rent to Rs.10 per sq ft from 20 February 2017, treating the plaint building area as 357 sq ft (roughly Rs.3,570 per month), while holding that Rs.3,000 per month would continue from the petition date to 20 February 2017. Consequently, RCRev.241/2017 was dismissed and RCRev.318/2017 was allowed in part, with the revised rent applicable prospectively.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 5 of the Kerala (Building Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inflation and cost of living variations are relevant factors in determining fair rent (cited with Edgerferus v. Abraham Itticheriya)
Interference in Rent Revision is limited to legality and propriety of the methodology; rent determination is a factual finding.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioners contended that the Rs.3,000 per month fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is excessive and not reflective of the locality’s prevailing rents. They argued the plaint schedule building is old and not in a commercially important area, and Ext.A6 relates to a different unit with a different plinth area. They highlighted conflicting area measurements (PW3’s 20 sq.m vs C1’s 376.25 sq.ft and C2’s 357 sq.ft) and urged inflation, cost-of-living increases, and construction costs as relevant factors per Edgerferus v. Abraham Itticheriya. They challenged reliance on Ext.A6 as a sole comparator, emphasizing the need for a careful mix of evidence and true area in determining fair rent, and urged a downward or more modest adjustment aligned with the premises’ true value and the tenants’ ability to pay.

Contentions of Respondents

The revision respondent contended that the Appellate Authority’s Rs.3,000 per month is inadequate given prevailing rents for similar premises and inflationary trends. They argued Ext.A6 (Rs.2,500 for an adjacent shop) and comparable data justify a higher rent, and that the methodology of using Ext.A6 in the same building is sound for determining fair rent. They asserted inflation and market dynamics since 2012 warrant an upward adjustment and that the court should not overturn a rational decision based on legitimate comparables, area, and economic changes. The respondents pressed for maintaining or enhancing the rent amount, with a justified escalator aligned with inflation, and emphasized that the appellate order reflected a fair balancing of landlord and tenant interests.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Edgerferus v. Abraham Itticheriya	2004 (1) KLT 767	Positive	Cited to support considering inflation and cost-of-living changes as relevant factors in determining fair rent.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Elizabeth, Jacob George, Titus George, Sam George and Sheeba George v. Alex Varghese (RCRev.241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017), High Court of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN** **FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 19TH MAGHA, 1940** **RCRev..No. 241 of 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(BRC) NO. 1/2013 of RENT CONTROL (MUNSIFF) COURT, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 30-08-2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCA 30/2014 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - V(RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY), KOLLAM DATED 20-02-2017** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** - **1 ELIZABATH, AGED 89 YEARS, W/O LATE J.E.GEORGE, SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK-691 533.** - **2 JACOB GEORGE, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O LATE J.E.GEORGE, SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK-691 533.** - **3 TITUS GEORGE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE J.E.GEORGE, SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK-691 533.** - **4 SAM GEORGE, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O LATE J.E.GEORGE, SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK-691 533.** - **5 SHEEBA GEORGE, AGED 55 YEARS, D/O LATE J.E.GEORGE, SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK-691 533.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.M.D.SASIKUMAR SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G** RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 2 ## **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **ALEX VARGHESE, AGED 48 YEARS, VIEW BUNGALOW, CHEERANKAVU JUNCTION, THRIPPILAZHIKOM MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK-691 533.** **BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J PANICKER** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.02.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev..318/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN** **FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 19TH MAGHA, 1940** **RCRev..No. 318 of 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(BRC) NO.1/2013 of RENT CONTROL (MUNSIFF COURT), KOTTARAKKARA DATED 30-08-2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCA 30/2014 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-V (RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY), KOLLAM DATED 20-02-2017** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **ALEX VARGHESE, AGED 45, S/O. VARGHESE, VIEW BUNGALOW, CHEERANKAVU JUNCTION, THRIPPLILAZHIKAM, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.SAJU J PANICKER** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 ELIZABETH, AGED 86, W/O. J.E.GEORGE, SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 001.** **IT IS RECORDED THAT RESPONDENT NO.1 DIED AND HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ARE ALREADY ON THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AS RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 VIDE ORDER DATED 08/11/2018 IN MEMO DATED 31/10/2018 FILED BY COUNSEL FOR REVISION PETITIONER).** RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 4 |**2**|**JACOB GEORGE, AGED 59, S/O. J.E.GEORGE,**| |---|---| ||**SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE,**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 001.**| |**3**|**TITUS GEORGE, AGED 55, S/O. J.E.GEORGE,**| ||**SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE,**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 001.**| |**4**|**SAM GEORGE, AGED 48, S/O. J.E.GEORGE,**| ||**SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE,**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 001.**| |**5**|**SHEEBA GEORGE, AGED 52, S/O. J.E.GEORGE,**| ||**SAM COTTAGE, CHEERANKAVU, EZHUKONE,**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 001.**| **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.02.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev..241/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 5 ## **ORDER** ## **Harilal, J** The landlord and tenant filed R.C.R.Nos.318/2017 and 241/2017 respectively challenging the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam whereby the fair rent of the tenanted premises has been determined @ Rs.3,000/- per month. According to the landlord, the fair rent fixed by the appellate authority is inadequate and disproportionate, when considering the prevailing rent in the locality. But according to the tenant, the rent fixed by the appellate authority is excessive and disproportionate comparing with the prevailing rent of the similarly situated buildings in the locality. The RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 6 landlord filed the rent control petition seeking determination of fair rent under Section 5 of the Kerala (Building Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [for short, 'the Act] on the ground that the existing rent of the plaint schedule shop room is Rs.1,250/- and the said rent is inadequate when comparing with the prevailing rent of the similarly situated buildings in the locality. The tenant contended that the plaint schedule building is an old building and the same is not located in a commercially important area and the present rent, which is being paid by him @ Rs.750/per month is just and fair. However, the rent control court dismissed the rent control petition on a finding that the evidence available on record are not sufficient to fix the fair rent of the plaint schedule building. The RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 7 landlord preferred an appeal, and in that appeal the appellate authority reversed the findings of the rent control court and fixed the fair rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month relying on Ext.A6 rent deed produced in evidence by the landlord. 2. The scope and extent of interference with the rent fixed by the court below, in revision, is very limited and this Court is not inclined to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record as the determination of fair rent is a factual finding, on evidence. The extent of interference in this revision could be confined to the legality and propriety of the methodology adopted by the court below in determining the fair rent only. Bearing the aforesaid legal proposition in mind, we have scrutinized the methodology adopted RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 8 by the court below in fixing the fair rent. 3. The landlord has produced Exts.A6 and A7 to prove the prevailing rent in the locality. Ext.A6 is a rent deed with respect to an adjacent shop room, in the same building. Ext.A7 is the rent deed of a building situated 1 k.m. away from the plaint schedule shop room. Though, the rate of rent was Rs.750/- per month, the court below has not relied on the said rent deed in fixing the fair rent of the plaint schedule building. The court below has relied on Ext.A6, as basic document, for the determination of the fair rent of the plaint schedule building. Ext.A6 is a rent agreement with respect to room No.137, a room in the same building under the same roof. Ext.A6 rent deed was executed on 04.10.2012 and the rent control RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 9 petition was instituted in February, 2013. The rate of rent shown in Ext.A6 is Rs.2,500/- per month and plinth area of that room is 20 sq.mtrs. Thus it has come out in evidence that Rs.2,500/- per month is the rent of the adjacent shop room in the same building, under the same roof. In the above view, the court below relied on Ext.A6 and fixed the fair rent of the plaint schedule building @ Rs.3,000/- per month. We do not find any kind of illegality or irregularity in the fixation of fair rent on the basis of Ext.A6. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in R.C.R.No.318/2017 contends that the rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month is inadequate in view of Ext.A6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in R.C.R.No.241/2017 contended RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 10 that the said rent is excessive and not a fair rent. Though PW3, the tenant, who occupies the building in Ext.A6, deposed that the plinth area of the shop room is 20 sq.mtr., in Ext.C1 report, the commissioner has reported that the said shop room is having an area of 376.25 sq.ft. only including verandha. Taking the area shown in Ext.C1 report as basis, the rent of the tenanted premises in Ext.A6 documents would be @ Rs.6.84 per sq.ft. As per C2 commission report the area of the petition schedule building is 357 sq.ft. including verandha. The original determination of fair rent was made in the year 2014. The rent deed in Ext.A6 was executed in 04.10.2012, two years have elapsed after the execution of Ext.A6. Inflation is a universal phenomenon which does not require special RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 11 proof and it is a fact which court can taken in judicial notice. 5. In _**Edgerferus v. Abraham Itticheriya**_ **[2004 (1) KLT 767]** this Court held that the decrease in purchasing power of money and variation in the cost of living index caused by inflation is a factor to be taken note of while determining the fair rent. So also the market price of the land and the increase in the construction cost of the building also requires consideration as relevant factors in the determination of fair rent. In the above view, we find that the rate of rent evident from Ext.A6 requires modification in the instant case. 6. Therefore, we are inclined to enhance the fair rent of the plaint schedule building from the date RCRev. 241/2017 & RCRev.318/2017 12 of the judgment passed by the appellate authority. The fair rent of the plaint schedule building would stand fixed @ Rs.10/- per sq.ft. from 20.02.2017, treating the area of the plaint schedule building as 357 sq.ft. It is needless to say that the rent @ Rs.3,000/would remain as such from the date of petition till 20.02.2017. With the above modification, R.C.R.No.241/2017 will stand dismissed and R.C.R.No.318/2017 is allowed in part. **sd/K.HARILAL, JUDGE** **sd/-** **ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE** AMV/16/02/2019