Manthampatt Chattipurayil Asokan s/o Perachan v. Koyappurath Sadique s/o Beerankutty Haji

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI** **FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 330 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2016 IN RCA NO.51 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT KOZHIKODE- II CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCP NO.97 OF 2013 DATED 31.01.2015 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-II REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **MANTHAMPATT CHATTIPURAYIL ASOKAN S/O. PERACHAN, AGED 69, MANTHAMPATT CHATTIPURAYIL HOUSE, KOMMERI P.O., VALAYANAD AMSOM, KOMMERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673007. BY ADV SRI.SRINATH GIRISH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **KOYAPPURATH SADIQUE S/O. BEERANKUTTY HAJI, AGED ABOUT 44, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANKAVU P.O., VALAYANAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673007. BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2022 ALONG WITH RCR NO.347 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 R.C.R.Nos.330 & 347 of 2016 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 347 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2016 IN RCA NO.52 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT KOZHIKODE- II CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCP NO.97 OF 2013 DATED 31.01.2015 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-II REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **MANTHAMPATT CHATTIPURAYIL ASOKAN AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. PERACHAN, AGED 69, MANTHAMPATT CHATTIPURAYIL HOUSE,KOMMERI P.O., VALAYANAD AMSOM, KOMMERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK673 007.** **BY ADV SRI.SRINATH GIRISH** ## **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **KOYAPPURATH SADIQUE S/O.BEERANKUTTY HAJI, AGED ABOUT 44, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANKAVU P.O., VALAYANAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 007. BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2022, ALONG WITH RCR NO.330 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 R.C.R.Nos.330 & 347 of 2016 ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Rent Control Revision Nos.330 and 347 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of October, 2022.** ## **O R D E R** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** These revision petitions are instituted under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) challenging the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, in terms of which appeals against the order passed by the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode in an application preferred under Section 5(1) of the Act for fixation of fair rent in respect of a shop room, have been disposed of with a modification. The tenant in the proceedings is the petitioner in the revision petitions. 2. The subject matter of the proceedings is a shop room measuring an area of about 250 sq.ft. situated within the 4 R.C.R.Nos.330 & 347 of 2016 limits of Kozhikode Corporation. The premises was let out to the tenant by the predecessor of the landlord on 09.08.1982 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The rent was revised by the tenant to Rs.600/- per month after about 30 years in the year 2012. According to the landlord, the shop room would fetch a minimum rent of Rs.3,000/- per month and he is, therefore, entitled to get the fair rent of the premises fixed at Rs.3,000/per month. 3. The landlord gave evidence in the proceedings as PW1 and produced Exts.A1 to A3 documents. The tenant gave evidence in the proceedings as RW1 and produced Exts.B1 to B6 documents. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the report and sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the proceedings. 4. Having regard to the materials on record, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent of the premises at Rs.2,000/- per month. Both the landlord and tenant preferred appeals challenging the decision of the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority, on a reappraisal of the materials on R.C.R.Nos.330 & 347 of 2016 5 record, modified the order of the Rent Control Court by fixing the fair rent of the premises at Rs.2,500/- per month. The tenant is aggrieved by the common judgment passed by the Appellate Authority in this regard and hence the revision petitions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the tenant as also the learned counsel for the landlord. We have also called for and perused the records in the case. 6. The learned counsel for the tenant asserted that there are no materials before the Appellate Authority to fix the fair rent of the premises even at Rs.2,000/- per month and the fixation of fair rent made by the authorities below, in the circumstances, is liable to be interfered with. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the premises being one situated in the heart of Kozhikode City, having regard to the importance of the locality, the Appellate Authority cannot be found fault with for having fixed the fair rent of the premises at Rs.2,500/-. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the 6 R.C.R.Nos.330 & 347 of 2016 learned counsel for the parties, the only point arising for consideration is as to whether any interference is called for in the decision of the Rent Control Court as modified by the Appellate Authority . 8. The point: As is well known, fair rent is not always what is fair between a particular landlord and a tenant. It is the reasonable rent which a willing tenant would pay to a willing landlord for a building commensurate with the rent prevalent in the locality, having regard to its location and nature. In **Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria** , 2004 (1) KLT 767, it was held by this court that a landlord is entitled to revision of rent of the tenanted premises quinquennially, even in the absence of any provision in the arrangement for periodical revision of rent. It was also held by this court in the said case that the said revision shall be made having regard to the inflation and resultant reduction in the purchasing power of money, variations in the cost of living index in the area since the commencement of the lease, locational importance, demand for accommodation and availability of premises, cost R.C.R.Nos.330 & 347 of 2016 7 of construction of the premises, capital value of the premises, type of construction, advantages and amenities of the premises, the prevailing rent in the locality for the same and similar accommodation etc. Keeping in mind the aforesaid guidelines, we shall proceed to examine the legality, regularity and propriety of the impugned decisions. 9. The landlord did not give any evidence in the proceedings to prove the rent which is being paid by tenants in identical or similar premises in the locality. Instead, he relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the proceedings to establish his case that he is entitled to get the fair rent of the premises fixed as claimed by him. Even though the Advocate Commissioner stated in the report based on the information collected by him that the tenant in the adjoining shop room in the same building is paying rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month, the Rent Control Court did not accept the same, as the said evidence can be considered only as hearsay. Instead, it is having regard to the importance of the locality as disclosed in the materials on record and having regard to the 8 R.C.R.Nos.330 & 347 of 2016 fact that the agreed rent at the time when the premises was let out in the year 1982 was Rs.500/- that the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at Rs.2000/- per month. The Appellate Authority, it appears, has revised the fair rent from Rs.2000/per month to Rs.2500/- per month on the same line. 10. It has come out in evidence that the premises in question is located in the heart of Kozhikode City in a commercial area. As noticed by the Rent Control Court, the premises is one which was let out to the tenant as early as on 09.08.1982 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. Even though the landlord is entitled to revision of rent quinquennially, it is admitted that there has been no revision at all for about 30 years and the rent has been revised from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.600/- per month only in the year 2012. It is thereafter, on 28.05.2013 that the application has been filed by the landlord under Section 5(1) of the Act for fixation of fair rent. True, no evidence was let in by the landlord to prove the rent a willing tenant would pay to a willing landlord having regard to the locality and the only materials available are as regards the 9 R.C.R.Nos.330 & 347 of 2016 importance of the locality. As noted, in **Edger Ferus** , it was held by this court that one of the factors to be taken note of by the authorities under the Act for fixing the fair rent is the inflation and resultant reduction in the purchasing power of money. If the indexation method provided for under the Income Tax legislations to offset the effect of inflation is adopted in the case on hand, the figure corresponding to Rs.500/- in the year 1982 would work out to be approximately Rs.4,500/- in the year 2013. As noted, the Appellate Authority has fixed the fair rent of the premises only at Rs.2,500/- per month in modification of the fixation made by the Rent Control Court. We do not, therefore, find any reason to interfere with the decisions of the authorities below in exercise of the power under Section 20 of the Act. The revision petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** **Sd/-** ## **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE.** Mn