K.P Narayanan (Tenant) v. Subha T.K (Landlady)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 81 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2019 IN RCA NO.18 OF 2017 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCP NO.62 OF 2015 DATED 31.08.2016 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR - REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT TENANT:** **K.P.NARAYANAN AGED 67 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, BUSINESS, SHINY STORE, DOOR NO.SB V/565, VICHITHRA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE N.S THEATRE,KANNUR-670002, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.P. JANARDHANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, P O KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670604. BY ADVS. MATHEW KURIAKOSE SRI.G.GIREESH** ## **- RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER LANDLORD:** **SUBHA.T.K AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. LATE C.K. SASIDHARAN, RESIDING AT SAHASTRARA, NEAR DSC CENTRE, MILL ROAD, KANNUR, PIN-670001.** **BY ADV SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev. No. 81 of 2020 -: 2 :- ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **R.C.Rev. No.81 of 2020** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 9[th] day of January, 2023.** ## **O R D E R** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** The tenant in a proceedings for fixation of fair rent under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act), is the petitioner in this revision petition. 2. The subject matter of the proceedings is a shop room in a commercial complex consisting of several shop rooms situated at Caltex Junction, Kannur. The rent that was being paid for the room by the tenant to the landlady at the time of institution of the proceedings was Rs.3000/- per month. The area of the room is 279 sq.ft. According to the landlady, having regard to the commercial importance of the locality, she is entitled to fair rent at least at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. The tenant raised objections to the prayer for fixation of fair rent contending that the rent that is R.C.Rev. No. 81 of 2020 -: 3 :- being paid by him represents the fair rent payable in respect of the premises. 3. The application was tried along with three other applications preferred by the landlady in respect of other tenants occupying similar and identical premises in the very same building. The landlady gave evidence in the proceedings as PW1. Exts.A1 to A15 are the documentary evidence on her side. The tenant gave evidence in the proceedings as RW3. Exts.B1 to B3 are the documentary evidence let in on the side of the tenants. Ext.C1 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner. 4. The Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent of the premises at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.ft. per month. The tenant accepted the decision of the Rent Control Court. The landlady, however challenged the decision of the Rent Control Court in appeal. The Appellate Authority, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, revised and re-fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.feet. The tenant is aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority and hence, this revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the landlady as also R.C.Rev. No. 81 of 2020 -: 4 :- ## the learned counsel for the tenant. 6. The learned counsel for the tenant argued that while granting an upward revision of the fair rent, the Appellate Authority did not properly appreciate the fact that the building lacks basic amenities. It was also argued by the learned counsel that the Appellate Authority did not properly advert to the contention raised by the tenant that Exts.A13 and A14 lease agreements produced by the landlady are not genuine documents. Similarly, it was also argued by the learned counsel that the annual rental value of the shop room assessed by the local authority for the purpose of determining the property tax payable in respect of the same is only Rs.10,252/- and the authorities below, in the circumstances, ought not have fixed the fair rent of the premises disproportionate to the annual rental value assessed by the local authority. The essence of the submission made by the learned counsel for the tenant, in the circumstances, was that the upward revision of the fair rent granted by the Appellate Authority in favour of the landlady is liable to be interfered with by this court in exercise of the power under Section 20 of the Act. R.C.Rev. No. 81 of 2020 -: 5 :- 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlady supported the impugned decision of the Appellate Authority pointing out that no grounds, whatsoever, have been made out by the tenant warranting interference in the decision of the Appellate Authority, in exercise of the power under Section 20 of the Act. 8. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the case. 9. Before proceeding to deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to point out the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act 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 is 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 R.C.Rev. No. 81 of 2020 -: 6 :- 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. 10. Exts.A13 and A14 are lease agreements entered into by the landlady with other tenants occupying similar premises in the very same building. The landlady is a party to Exts.A13 and A14. It is seen that the marking of the said documents have not been objected to by the tenant. True, during cross-examination of the landlady, though it was put to the landlady that Exts.A13 and A14 are not genuine documents, the suggestion was emphatically denied by her. Insofar as the landlady is a party to the said documents, in a case of this nature, if the case of the tenant is that Exts.A13 and A14 are not genuine documents, he should have established the same by examining the other tenants involved in the documents. It is seen that the said course has not been adopted by the tenant. We do not, therefore, find any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant that the authorities below ought not have R.C.Rev. No. 81 of 2020 -: 7 :- placed reliance on Exts.A13 and A14 lease agreements in the matter of fixing the fair rent of the premises. 11. It is now trite that while fixing the fair rent of a premises, the Rent Control Court is free to take note of factors such as (i) inflation and resultant reduction in the purchasing power of money, (ii) variation in the cost of living index in the area since commencement of the lease, (iii) demand for accommodation and availability of the building in the locality, (iv) prevailing rent in the locality for the similar accommodation, (v) type of construction, (vi) general or special amenities provided in the building, (vii) nature of occupation, (viii) annual rental value of the building at the time of filing the application for fair rent, (ix) revision of fresh imposition of municipal taxes etc. [See **Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria** , 2004 (1) KLT 767]. The amenities available for the building is only one of the factors to be taken note of by the Rent Control Court while fixing the fair rent of the premises. As such, merely for the reason that there is no wash room facility or other similar amenities in the building, it cannot be said that the fixation of fair rent is illegal, irregular or improper, for it is on a cumulative consideration R.C.Rev. No. 81 of 2020 -: 8 :- of all the relevant factors that the Rent Control Court has arrived at a factual conclusion as to the fair rent payable in respect of the premises. It is all the more so since the finding arrived at by the Rent Control Court, in this regard is purely a decision on a question of fact. As regards the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant based on the annual rental value of the building, merely for the reason that the annual rental value of the building as assessed by the local authority is not proportionate to the fair rent fixed by the authorities below, it cannot be said that the fixation is bad. 12. It is relevant to note in this regard that as per Ext.A13, the monthly rent payable by the other tenant for a premises measuring 150 sq. ft. in the very same building is Rs.12,000/-. The rent that is being received by the landlady for the premises covered by Ext.A13 would work out to be Rs.80/- per sq. ft. Ext.A13 is a document executed prior to the institution of the application for fixation of fair rent. Ext.A13 lease agreement alone is sufficient, according to us, to justify the upward revision of fair rent granted by the Appellate Authority in the case on hand. We do not R.C.Rev. No. 81 of 2020 -: 9 :- find, in the circumstances, any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the decisions of the authorities below, warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** Sd/- **C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** Mn