N. Prasanna v. M/S P.G. Complex and P.M. Abdul Nazeer

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/29TH KARTHIKA, 1941** **RCRev..No.128 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 IN RCA 35/2017 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 IN RCP 38/2015 OF RENT CONTROL COURT(ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT I,KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **N.PRASANNA,AGED 63 YEARS,W/O.MOOTHARAN, RROM NO.6/486 B,P.G.COMPLEX,3RD FLOOR, BANK ROAD,KALAHINKUNNU AMSOM,DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 M/S.P.G.COMPLEX,P.G.COMPLEX, BANK ROAD,KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM,DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE-679 6635, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.M.ABDUL NAZEER,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA,RESIDING AT 'FILED HOUSE', KUTTIYADI AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 508.** **2 P.M.ABDUL NAZEER,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA,RESIDING AT 'FILED HOUSE', KUTTIYADI AMSOM DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE – 673 508.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.V.B.SANTHINI** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.R. No.128/2019 2 ## **ORDER** ## **K. Harilal, J.** The revision petitioner herein is the tenant, against whom, an order, enhancing the rent from `1500/- to `2460/-, was passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. According to the revision petitioner, the tenanted premises, having an area of 140sq. feet situated in the third floor of the building was entrusted with the respondents as per Ext.A1 lease deed, for a monthly rent of `900/-. Thus, the tenancy has commenced under Ext.A1, in the year 1998 and thereafter there was no enhancement in the rate of rent, even though there is a provision in Ext.A1, for periodical enhancement of the rent at the rate of 15% per every three year. No enhancement has been made so far in the rate of rent. The revision petitioner is still paying `900/per month as rent originally fixed vide Ext.A1 despite the long lapse of two decades. Considering R.C.R. No.128/2019 3 the rate of rent of the other buildings in the same locality, the present rate of rent is very low. The respondents claimed rent at the rate of `5000/- per month. 2. The revision petitioner resisted the claim for enhancement contending that the building is an old one and there is no amenities to claim enhancement of rent. It is also contended that, the revision petitioner is a tailor and she is carrying out her avocation with the help of her husband. She is not getting any sufficient work and hence she finds it very difficult to earn livelihood from her work. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the claim for enhancement of rent. 3. After considering the evidence on record, which consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4, from the part of the respondents herein and the oral testimony of revision petitioner R.C.R. No.128/2019 4 as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B9, the Rent Control Court fixed rent at the rate of `1500/- per month. In appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority enhanced the rent to `2460/- per month. The findings, whereby the appellate authority enhanced the rent from `1,500/- to `2460/- are under challenge in this revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 5. The sum and substance of arguments advanced by the learned counsel is that the findings, whereby the appellate authority enhanced the rent from `1500/- to `2460/-, are legally unsustainable in the absence of any other evidence to prove the prevailing rent in the locality. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the findings, whereby the Rent Control Appellate Authority R.C.R. No.128/2019 5 ## enhanced the rent from `1500/- to `2460/-. The findings whereby the rent enhancement made are as follows: “Apart from production Exts.A3, A4 and oral evidence in the form of ipsi dixit of PW1, nothing more was done to prove the claimed rate of fair rent. However, to resolve the issue it would appear to me that rate of interest at which loans are lend by banks would be a dependable yardstick. Presently rate of lending by nationalised bank is 10% and above with regard to commercial transactions. Taking 10% as the rate of interest, it could be seen that a sum of Rs.900/- deposited in 1998 would earn interest of Rs.1560/- by 17 years. Total, inclusive of principal would come to Rs.2,460/-. Therefore, this court is of the view that enhancement ought to have been @Rs.2,460/- per month at least from the date of petition onwards, providing for periodical increase at the rates mentioned in Ext.A1 lease deed. To answer the point I would summarise the findings as hereunder” ## 6. Going by the impugned judgment, we find R.C.R. No.128/2019 6 that the tenancy has commenced in the year 1998 at the rate of `900/- per month and thereafter there was no revision of rent, despite the long lapse of 20 years. The area of the building is not disputed. Though, the petitioner has produced Exts.A3 and A4, the same has not been taken into account for fixing the rent, for the sole reason that the amenities available in the tenanted premises under Exts.A3 and A4 were not assessed by deputing a Commission and no evidence was forthcoming to prove the similarity of the petition schedule building with the tenanted premises in Exts. A3 and A4. But Exts.A3 and A4 shows, rent at the rate of `3,000/- per month. In order to prove the claim for enhancement of rent the 2[nd] respondent was examined as PW1 and he has testified the need for enhancement of rent, in view of the subsequent development in the locality and inflation that R.C.R. No.128/2019 7 resulted reduction in the purchasing power of money, variation of cost of living index and rate of rent of similarly situated buildings in the locality. But, nothing has been brought out to discredit his oral evidence and his evidence is supported by increase in the rate of interest during the last more than 17 years. According to the appellate authority, the increase in the lending rate, by nationalised bank at 10% and above with regard to commercial transaction can be taken into account for fixing their rent, in the absence of any other material to prove the claim for enhancement of rent. 7. We have meticulously gone through the reasonings, on the basis of the rate of enhancement in interest in lending money by the banks. In **Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittucheria [2004 (1) KLT 767]** , this court held that inflation and resultant reduction in the purchasing power of R.C.R. No.128/2019 8 money, variation 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, prevailing rent in the locality for similar accommodation can be taken into account, while determining fair rent. 8. We are of the opinion that the resultant reduction in the purchasing power of money and variation of cost of living index caused by inflation, are universal common phenomena, that can be taken into account by judicial notice also, without specific proof for the same. Even if no evidence has been produced to prove the said facts, the court can take judicial notice of variation in the economic statistics. In the above view, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is justified in taking the increase in the interest in lending money, by the nationalised bank, as the basis for variation in the R.C.R. No.128/2019 9 money value for the last more than two decades. We do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid reasoning, whereby rent stands enhanced from `900/- to `2,460/-, for 20 years. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- **K. HARILAL JUDGE** Sd/- **C.S. DIAS JUDGE** ncd