In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam - R.C.Revision Nos. 106/2018, 149/2018, 223/2018, 224/2018 and 246/2018

# **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 14[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **RCREV. NO. 106 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.P.NO.12/2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT,** ## **PALAKKAD** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 IN R.C.A.NO.34/2016 OF THE RENT** **CONTROL APPEALLATE AUTHORITY-V, PALAKKAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** JOY PETER AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS PETER,PALAL PLYWOOD,DOOR NO.11/306(1),K.P.COMPLEX,T.B.ROAD,PALAKKAD-678001. BY ADV SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 ABDUL GAFOOR S/O.ABDUL HAJI,KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM,MALAPPURAM-676505. 2 JAMEELA W/O.ABDUL GAFOOR,KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM,MALAPPURAM-676505. BOTH ARE REPRESENTEED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDU HAJI,S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM,MALAPPPURAM-676505. BY ADV SRI.SAJAN VARGHESE.K THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..149/2018, 223/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.C.R.Nos.106 and connected cases. 2 **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 14[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 149 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.P.NO.13/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL** ## **COURT, PALAKKAD** **AGIANST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 R.C.A.NO.33/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-V, PALAKKAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** MARY THOMAS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, MATHA MEDICALS, BUILDIG NO. 11/1036, K.P.COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 ABDUL GAFOOR AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. ABDU HAJI, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 2 JAMEELA AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. ABDU GAFOOR, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL HAJI, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 68 YEARS, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..106/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.C.R.Nos.106 and connected cases. 3 **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 14[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **RCREV. NO. 223 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.P.NO.12/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL** **COURT, PALAKKAD** **AGIANST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 R.C.A.NO.31/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-V, PALAKKAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 ABDUL GAFOOR S/O. ABDU HAJI, AGED 44, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK,MALAPPURAM. REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,ABDU HAJI, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 71,KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE,MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK,MALAPPURAM. 2 JAMEELA W/O. ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 36, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, ERNAD TALUK,MALAPPURAM.MAILAPPURAM,DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK,MALAPPURAM. REP. BY THE PWOER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABDU HAJI, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 71, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE,MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK,MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.ABE RAJAN SRI.LIJU. M.P ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** JOY PETER W/O. THOMAS PETET, AGED 51, PALAL PLYWOOD,BUILDING NO. 11/1036(1) K P COMPLEX,T B ROAD, PALAKKAD- 678 001. BY ADV SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..106/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.C.R.Nos.106 and connected cases. 4 ## **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 14[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 224 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.P.NO.13/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD AGIANST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 R.C.A.NO.32/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-V, PALAKKAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 ABDUL GAFOOR S/O.ABDUL HAJI, AGED 44, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,ABDU HAJI, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGE 71, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2 JAMEELA W/O.ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED 36, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,ABDU HAJI, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGE 71, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.ABE RAJAN SRI.LIJU. M.P ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** MARY THOMAS AGED 58, MATHA MEDICALS, BUILDING NO.11/1036, K.P.COMPLEX, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY ADV SRI.K.B.GANGESH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..106/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.C.R.Nos.106 and connected cases. 5 ## **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 14[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **RCREV. NO. 246 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.P.NO.11/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL** ## **COURT, PALAKKAD** **AGIANST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2017 R.C.A.NO.30/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-V, PALAKKAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 ABDUL GAFOOR AGED 44 YEARS S/O. ABDU HAJI,KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABDU HAJI, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 71, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2 JAMEELA AGED 36 YEARS W/O. ABDUL GAFOOR, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM, MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABDU HAJI, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGE 71, KIZHAKKEPALLICKAL HOUSE, MAILAPPURAM, DOWN HILL POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.ABE RAJAN SRI.LIJU. M.P ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** A.K.JANAKI W/O. LATE S.K.V. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 63, HARISREE JEWELLERY, BUILDING NO. 11/1038, K.P.COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..106/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.C.R.Nos.106 and connected cases. 6 ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **--------------------------------------------------** **R.C.R.Nos.106, 149, 223, 224 and 246 of 2018** **------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of December, 2022** ## **O R D E R** ## **C.S.Sudha, J.** These rent control revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) have been filed against the common judgment dated 29/11/2017 in R.C.A.Nos.30/2016, 31/2016, 32/2016, 33/2016 and 34/2016 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA)-V, Palakkad, which appeals are against the common order dated 30/07/2016 in R.C.P.No.11/2015, 12/2015 and 13/2015, on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Palakkad. The revision petitioners in R.C.R.Nos.223/2018, 224/2018 and 246/2018 are the petitioners in the R.C.Ps. The revision petitioners in R.C.R.Nos.106/2018 and 149/2018 are the respondents in R.C.P.Nos.12/2015 and 13/2015. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P. 2. R.C.P.No.11/2015, 12/2015 and 13/2015 were filed under Section 5 of the Act seeking fixation of fair rent. The petitioners-landlords are same in all the R.C.Ps. The respondents-tenants are different. According to the petitioners, they are the landlords of the building named K.P.Complex situated in an important R.C.R.Nos.106 and connected cases. 7 commercial locality in Palakkad. The building consists of several rooms. The petition schedule rooms in the three R.C.Ps. were let out in the year 1986 for a monthly rent of ₹500/-, ₹1,000/-. and ₹600/- respectively. The building is situated in a commercially important locality. Several public institutions are situated in and around the locality. The complex has parking facility also. The rent of the shop rooms was fixed years back. There has been considerable increase in the cost of living index. Hence, the petitioners claimed enhancement of rent and fixation of fair rent. In R.C.P.No.11/2015, the rent at the rate of ₹9,500 per month was claimed. In R.C.P.No.12/2015 rent at the rate of ₹18,000/- per month and in R.C.P.No.13/2015, rent at the rate of ₹8,000/- per month was sought to be fixed. 3. Respondents-tenants filed counter denying the allegations in the R.C.Ps. They denied the allegation that the building is situated in a commercially important area. The building housing the petition schedule rooms is a very old building. No maintenance work is being done by the petitioners-landlords. The parking area available is not sufficient. The rate of rent claimed by the petitioners is quite excessive and hence they contended that the petitioners are not entitled to rent at the rates claimed by them in the petitions. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the petitioners. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. The reports of the advocate commissioner have been marked as Exts.C1 and C2. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, R.C.R.Nos.106 and connected cases. 8 the RCC allowed the R.C.Ps. Rent at the rate of ₹20/- per sq.ft.; ₹22.50/- per sq.ft. and ₹25/- per sq.ft. has been fixed for the petition schedule rooms in R.C.P.Nos.11/2015, 12/2015 and 13/2015 respectively. It was also directed that the respondents are liable to pay the rent with effect from 02/02/2015 onwards. Against the order fixing fair rent, respondents-tenants filed R.C.A.Nos.29/2016, 34/2016 and 33/2016. Aggrieved by the rate at which the fair rent had been fixed, the petitionerslandlords filed R.C.A.Nos.30/2016, 31/2016 and 32/2016. All the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment confirming the findings of the RCC. Aggrieved, both the petitioners and the tenants have come up in revision against the concurrent findings of the RCC and the RCAA. 5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the concurrent findings of the RCC and RCAA suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 6. Heard Sri. Sajan Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioners in R.C.R.Nos.223/2018, 224/2018 and 246/2018, Sri. James Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner in R.C.R.No.106/2018 and Sri.K.B.Ganesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in R.C.R.No.149/2018. 7. The scope of interference by the revisional court under Section 20 of the Act is restricted to cases where the RCC or RCAA have relied on irrelevant consideration, ignored valuable items of evidence or applied wrong principles of law. The power of revision is limited to making a scrutiny of the records to satisfy itself as to the three tests laid down in Section 20. The revisional court cannot convert itself R.C.R.Nos.106 and connected cases. 9 into an evidence collecting or fact finding court. 8. We were taken through the evidence on record as well as the orders of the RCC and the RCAA. Neither the petitioners nor the respondents have been able to point out any irregularity or infirmity in the findings of the RCC or the RCAA. The RCC has given cogent reasons for fixing the fair rent at the rates referred to herein above. The RCAA has re-appreciated the evidence on record and found no infirmity in the order of the RCC. We also find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety committed by the RCAA. In the light of the dictum in **Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan, AIR 2011 SC 1940** , the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% every three years. On behalf of the respondents-tenants, time was sought for clearing the rent arrears at the rate fixed by the RCC. In the result, all the rent control revisions are dismissed confirming the impugned judgment with the aforesaid modification. Respondents in all the three R.C.Ps are given three months time from this day for clearing the rent arrears. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** **Sd/C.S.SUDHA** **JUDGE** Jms/12.12