K. Rajesh v. Valipparambil Aboobacker and others (R.C.Rev.No.70 of 2022)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2021 IN R.C.A.NO.73 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), THRISSUR CONCURRING WITH** **THE COMMON ORDER IN R.C.P.NO.100 OF 2012 DATED 31.07.2015 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT,** ## **THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **K.RAJESH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O KONDAPARAMBIL SHANMUGH KANGIRANGODE VILLAGE AND DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 680 590** **BY ADVS. S.ABHILASH VISHNU K.R.MONISHA SURYA MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 VALIPARAMBIL ABOOBACKER, AGED 77 YEARS,** **S/O PATTATHUVALAPPIL AHAMEDUNNI, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** **2 MUHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMEDALI, MUBAREK HOUSE, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK.** R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 2 ## **PIN - 679 562** - **3 MUHAMMED NAZEER, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O VALIPARAMBIL ABOOBACKER, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** - **4 MUHAMMED NOUSHAD, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O VALIPARAMBIL ABOOBACKER, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** - **5 NASHEEDA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O VALIPARAMBIL ABOOBACKER, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** - **6 MUJEEB RAHIMAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMEDALI, MUBAREK HOUSE, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. PIN - 679 562** - **7 SAFEESA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O LATE KESAVATHUPARAMBIL HYDROSE, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** - **8 ABDUL KHADER, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O LATE KESAVATHUPARAMBIL HYDROSE, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** - **9 MOIDUTTY, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O VELIYATHIL MUHAMMED, VADUTHALA DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, TALAPILLY TALUK. PIN - 680 523** - **10 RASIYA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O LATE KESAVATHUPARAMBIL HYDROSE, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 3 **11 JAFFER, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O LATE KESAVATHUPARAMBIL HYDROSE, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** **12 SAMEER, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O LATE KESAVATHUPARAMBIL HYDROSE, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** **13 ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O LATE KESAVATHUPARAMBIL HYDROSE, KOCHANNUR DESOM, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 679 562** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 4 ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.100 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thrissur, a petition filed by the respondents hereinlandlords under Section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for fixation of fair rent, in respect of the petition schedule building having an area of 231.75 sq.ft. The tenancy commenced in the year 2005, with a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-, which was enhanced to Rs.2,300/- in the year 2012. The landlords filed Rent Control Petition for fixation of fair rent as Rs.11,500/-, at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.ft. The tenant entered appearance and filed objection in the Rent Control Petition. The Rent Control Petition was tried along with connected matters. Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the landlords and PWs.1 to 4 were examined. On the side of the tenants, Exts.B1 to B1(a) were marked and RWs.1 to 4 were examined. Exts.X1 and X2 were marked through witness. 2. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court, by a common order dated R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 5 31.07.2015 in R.C.P.No.100 of 2012 and connected matters, fixed the fair rent of the petition schedule shop room in R.C.P.No.100 of 2012 as Rs.4,600/-. Challenging the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court, the tenants filed R.C.A.No.73 of 2015 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (1[st] Additional District Judge), Thrissur, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 28.10.2021, thereby confirming the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court. Challenging the order dated 31.07.2015 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.100 of 2012 and the judgment dated 28.10.2021 of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.73 of 2015, the petitioner-tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. 4. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of the Rent Control Court in fixing fair rent of the petition schedule shop room as Rs.4,600/- per month and also R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 6 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, whereby the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court stands confirmed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fixation of fair rent of the petition schedule shop room as Rs.4,600/- per month by the Rent Control Court was absolutely without any basis. In the order dated 31.07.2015 the Rent Control Court found that the rate of rent reflected in Exts.X1 and X2 rental agreements cannot be taken into consideration for fixation of fair rent. The Appellate Authority, without properly appreciating the contentions raised by the tenant, dismissed the appeal, by the judgment dated 28.10.2021, thereby confirming the fixation of the fair rent by the Rent Control Court. The concurrent findings of the authorities below, which are perverse and patently illegal, warrant interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. 6. Section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with determination of fair rent. As per Section R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 7 5(1), the Rent Control Court shall, on application of the tenant or landlord of a building, fix the fair rent for such building after holding such enquiry as it thinks fit. 7. In **Edgar Ferus v. Abraham Itticheriya [2004 (1)** **KLT 767]** a Division Bench of this Court, declared that Section 5(1) of the Act shall remain in the statute book enabling the Rent Control Court to fix fair rent. In paragraph 14 of the order, the Division Bench laid down the principles governing the fixation of fair rent under Section 5 of the Act as follows; “14. We therefore, enunciate the following principles. 1. Section 5(1) of the Act would remain in the statute book enabling the Rent Control Court to fix fair rent. xxx xxx xxx xxx 5. The judgment in **P. John Zacharia and Co. v. Ittychriah [1987 (1) KLT 156]** , holding that even beyond the period originally stipulated, till evicted under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act only the agreed rent alone is payable by the tenant is not good law and to that extent it stands overruled. 6. Landlord or the tenant as the case may be, can approach the Rent Control Court for revision of rent quinquennially. Even if there is no provision for periodical revision of the rent in the rent deed even then the landlord R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 8 can approach the Rent Control Court for revision of rent. We hold that the plea of continuous occupation by holding over or the protection as statutory tenant since those rights are subservient to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the landlord under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Rent Control Court while fixing fair rent could take note of the inflation and resultant reduction in the purchasing power of money, variations in the cost of living index in the area since commencement of the lease, demand for accommodation and availability of the buildings in the locality. 8. The cost of construction of the building including cost of labour and building materials, capital value of the entire premises in the enjoyment of the tenant inclusive of the value of the land under the actual enjoyment of the tenant whether immediately appurtenant to the building or otherwise, type of construction, locational importance, situations of the tenanted premises, ground floor, first floor etc. and other advantages and amenities, such as access to places of public importance like bus stand, railway station, educational institution, hospitals etc. would also be guiding factors. 9. The Rent Control Court will also take into consideration the prevailing rent in the locality for the same and similar accommodation. The type of construction, the amenities, general or special provided in the building, the open land attached to the building, whether residential or non R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 9 residential are also to be borne in mind. 10. Annual rental value of the building at the time of filing the application for fair rent may also be taken as a guiding factor along with others. 11. Revision or fresh imposition of municipal taxes, cess, rate in respect of other increase in the charge of electricity or water consumption by the tenant and also by the landlord and increase on account of sufficient repairs would also be taken note of by the Rent Control Court. 12. The Rent Control Court can while resolving any rent control dispute on an application either by the landlord or tenant examine whether the rent is static and requires revision and fix fair rent accordingly permitting the parties to adduce evidence. 13. The judgment of the learned Judge in **George v. Narayani [1998 (1) KLT 239]** fixing fair rent while reinduction under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act is affirmed.” 8. The principles laid down by the Division Bench in **Edgar Ferus [2004 (1) KLT 767]** , governing the fixation of fair rent, stand affirmed by the Apex Court in **Edgar Ferus v. Abraham Itticheriya [2009 (4) KLT 673]** . 9. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that, once the Rent Control Court is called upon either by the tenant or the landlord to decide the fair rent, it is the responsibility of the R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 10 court, after holding an enquiry as it thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, to fix the fair rent. The court can take into consideration the evidence let in by the parties and relevant to the issue while fixing the fair rent, following the guidelines laid down in **Edgar Ferus [2004 (1) KLT 767]** . 10. In **Avinash V Saraf v. C.D.Jose and another [2021 (6) KHC 437]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, once the Rent Control Court is called upon either by the landlord or the tenant to decide the fair rent, it is the responsibility of the court after holding an enquiry as it thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, to fix the fair rent. In order to arrive at a decision regarding fair rent, the powers of the court are not circumscribed by the pleadings. The court can take into consideration the evidence let in by the parties and relevant to the issue, while fixing the fair rent, following the guidelines laid down in **Edgar Ferus [2004 (1) KLT 767]** . 11. The reasoning of the Rent Control Court in the order dated 31.07.2015 in fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 11 shop room in R.C.P.No.100 of 2012 is contained in paragraphs 34 to 36 of the said order. The petition schedule shop room is situated at Ayyanthol in Thrissur. The Advocate Commissioner, who submitted Ext.A16 report, was examined as PW2. The commercial importance of the locality in which the petition schedule shop room situates was brought out before the Rent Control Court through Ext.A16 report and also the oral testimony of the Advocate Commissioner as PW2. Though, the landlords relied Exts.X1 and X2 rental agreements dated 19.03.2012 and 26.08.2014 respectively, the Rent Control Court found that those documents cannot be relied upon for fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule shop room. Ext.X1 rental agreement was marked through PW3, who has deposed that the said agreement with tenant by name Naufal has already been terminated on 30.09.2013 and at the time of examination of PW3 the shop room referred to in Ext.X1 is lying vacant. Insofar as Ext.X2 rental agreement is concerned, the Rent Control Court found that the said agreement is one executed on 26.08.2014, which cannot be the basis for fixation of fair rent in a Rent R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 12 Control Petition filed in the year 2012. 12. Before the Rent Control Court, it has come out in evidence that, the petition schedule shop room is in the first floor of a three storied building by name, AMA Complex. There are other commercial buildings in the locality. Nokia Mobile Service Center, Auto Spare Parts Shop, dealership of Maruti Cars by Sai Service, etc., are situated near to the said shop room. Various other commercial establishments are also functioning in the very same shopping complex, i.e., AMA Complex. A textile shop by name, Jayalakshmi Silks, is situated about 200 meters away from the petition schedule shop room. The branch of State Bank and its ATM counter are situated 50 meters away from the said shop room. The Railway Station and KSRTC Bus Stand at Thrissur are at a distance of about 500 meters away from the petition schedule shop room. The commercial importance of the locality in which the said shop room situates, on account of proximity to Railway Station, KSRTC Bus Stand, etc. and also due to the presence of other commercial establishments, was not in serious dispute before R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 13 the Rent Control Court. 13. In the Rent Control Petition, the landlords sought for fixation of fair rent of the petition schedule shop room as Rs.11,500/-, at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.ft. As per Ext.X1 rental agreement dated 19.03.2012, a shop room having an area of 1300 sq.ft. was rented out for a monthly rent of Rs.1,30,000/-, at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. As already noticed hereinbefore the Rent Control Court did not take into consideration the contractual rent reflected in Ext.X1 only for the reason that the rental agreement with the tenant by name Naufal has already been terminated on 30.09.2013. 14. Before the Rent Control Court the tenant could not effectively challenge the commercial importance of the locality in which the petition schedule shop room situates, its proximity to Railway Station and KSRTC Bus Stand at Thrissur and also the presence of other commercial establishments in the locality. Those aspects are borne out from Ext.A16 report of the Advocate Commissioner and his oral testimony as PW2. It has also come out in evidence that other rooms in the shopping R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 14 complex 'AMA Complex' are occupied by tenants, though the landlords did not produce the rental agreements pertaining to those shop rooms. On an analysis of the entire evidence, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent of the petition schedule shop room as Rs.4,600/-, at the rate of approximately Rs.20/sq.ft., as against the claim of Rs.50/- per sq.ft. made in the Rent Control Petition. 15. In **Rattan Arya v. State of T.N. [(1986) 3 SCC 385]** , while considering the constitutionality of Section 30(ii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 the Apex Court held that the courts are entitled to take judicial - notice of the enormous multi fold increase of rents throughout the country, particularly in urban areas. It is common knowledge that the accommodation which one could have possibly got for Rs.400/- per month in 1973 will cost in 1986 at - - least five times more. In these days of universal day to day escalation of rentals, any ceiling such as that imposed by Section 30(ii) of the said Act in 1973 can only be considered to be totally artificial and irrelevant in 1986. R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 15 16. In the instant case, the tenancy of the petition schedule shop room commenced in the year 2005, with a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. That monthly rent was later enhanced by a negligible extent to Rs.2,300/-, in the year 2012. The fact that the petition schedule shop room is situated in a commercially important locality in Thrissur with proximity to Railway Station and KSRTC Bus Stand and that, various other commercial establishments are situated in the very same locality has come out in evidence by the oral testimony of the Advocate Commissioner, who was examined as PW2 and also Ext.A16 report of the Advocate Commissioner. The Rent Control Court, after taking note of the universal day-to-day escalation of rentals and also the commercial importance of the locality, fixed the fair rent of the petition schedule shop room as Rs.4,600/-, at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. ft. The fixation of fair rent as above, by the Rent Control Court, taking into consideration the evidence on record, cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal, especially when in the matter of fixation of fair rent the powers of the Rent Control Court are not circumscribed R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 16 by the pleadings, which can take into consideration the evidence let in by the parties, which are relevant to the issue of fixation of fair rent. The Appellate Authority, after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, found that the contractual rent of the petition schedule shop room was enhanced only to a negligible extent, within a period of seven years. After analysing the materials on record, the Appellate Authority found that the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court is reasonable and no grounds are made out by the appellant-tenant to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, in the judgment dated 28.10.2021, the Appellate Authority held that the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court at the rate of Rs.4,600/- per month from the date of petition, warrants no interference. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority in the said judgment cannot also be said to be either perverse or patently illegal warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act. 17. Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with revision. As per sub-section (1) of R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 17 Section 20, in cases, where the appellate authority empowered under Section 18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. As per sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the costs of and incident to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under sub-section (1) shall be in its discretion. 18. In **Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana [(1993) 1 SCC 499]** , the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 came up for consideration before the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court. While considering whether the High Court could have reappreciated entire evidence, the Apex Court held that, even the wider language of Section 20 of the Act cannot enable the High R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 18 Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise, the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in reappreciating the entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report. The High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional jurisdiction. Even by the presence of ‘ ’ - the word propriety it cannot mean that there could be a re appreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional court can come to a different conclusion but not on a re-appreciation of evidence; on the contrary, by confining itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. 19. In **T. Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari [(1999) 7 SCC 275]** the Apex Court held that, the words ‘to satisfy itself’ employed in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 no doubt is a power of superintendence, and the High Court is not required to interfere with the finding of fact merely because the High Court is not in agreement with the findings of the courts below. It is also true that the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 25 R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 19 of the Act is not an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the courts below. But where a finding arrived at by the courts below is based on no evidence, the High Court would be justified in interfering with such a finding recorded by the courts below. 20. In **Ubaiba v. Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645]** the Apex Court considered the exercise of revisional power by the High Court, under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in the context of an issue as to whether the relationship of landlord-tenant existed or not. It was urged that whether such relationship existed would be a jurisdictional fact. Relying on the decision in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** it was contended that, however wide the jurisdiction of the revisional court under Section 20 of the Act may be, it cannot have jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding upsetting the finding arrived at by the appellate authority. The Apex Court held that, though the revisional power under Section 20 of the Act may be wider than R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 20 Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power conferred on the civil court under the Code. Therefore, notwithstanding the use of the expression ‘propriety’ in Section 20 of the Act, the revisional - court will not be entitled to re appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion of the appellate authority. On examining the impugned judgment of the High Court, in the light of the aforesaid ratio, the Apex Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist. 21. In **Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78]** a Five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the revisional powers of the High Court under Rent Acts operating in different States. After referring to the law laid down in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** the Apex Court reiterated that even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 does not enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 21 appeal. The Constitution Bench agreed with the view of the Three-Judge Bench in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** that the word ‘propriety’ does not confer power upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its consideration of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. 22. In **Thankamony Amma v. Omana Amma [AIR 2019 SC 3803 : 2019 (4) KHC 412]** considering the matter in the backdrop of law laid down in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** , **Ubaiba** and **Dilbahar Singh** the Apex Court held that the findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not even be said to be perverse in any way. The High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. 23. In **Abdul Salam v. Sebastian [2013 (4) KLT 592]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that, even though in the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, it has been held R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 22 that, in revisional jurisdiction there cannot be a re-appreciation of evidence in order to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts, it has been held in those decisions itself that, if the view taken is perverse and the statutory scheme has not been kept in mind and if it requires correction, then Court can re-appreciate the evidence. When the argument is that, the approach made by the authorities are perverse, it cannot be said that this Court cannot look into the pleadings and scan through the evidence to find out whether the conclusions have been arrived at properly on the pleadings and evidence. 24. In **Regy V. Edthil v. Hubert Leslie D'Cruz [2016 (2) KLJ 164]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that, the High Court (in revision) is obliged to test the order of the Rent Control Court on the touch stone of whether it is according to law. For that limited purpose, it may enter into reappraisal of evidence for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Control Court is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached on the material available. R.C.REV.NO.70 OF 2022 23 25. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the fixation of fair rent of the petition schedule shop room by the Rent Control Court, for the reasons stated in the impugned order dated 31.07.2015, and also the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in its judgment dated 28.10.2021 for confirming the said fixation of fair rent, warrant no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. In the result, the Rent Control Revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN