Puthiyapurayil Kanamadathil Valsalan v. Kakkath Madhavi and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/30TH VAISAKHA, 1938 RCRev..No. 139 of 2016 () ----------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 200/2010 of ADDL.DC - II, THALASSERY. AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 297/2004 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR. REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUTHIYAPURAYIL KANAMADATHIL VALSALAN, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, BUSINESS, PALLIKUNNU AMSOM, CHALAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KAKKATH MADHAVI, D/O.CHATHU, RESIDING AT RAMATHERU, PUZHATHI AMSOM & DESOM, KANNUR-670002. 2. SULOCHANA, D/O.MADHAVI, AGED 63 YEARS, - K.C.NIVAS, RAMATHERU PUZHATHI AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670002. 3. VASANTHA.K.C., D/O.MADHAVI, AGED 60 YEARS, K.C.NIVAS, RAMATHERU PUZHATHI AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670002. 4. SANTHA.K.C., D/O.MADHAVI, AGED 57 YEARS, K.C.NIVAS, RAMATHERU PUZHATHI AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670002. 5. RAMACHANDRAN.K.C., S/O.MADHAVI, AGED 53 YEARS, K.C.NIVAS, RAMTHERU PUZHATHI AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670002. 6. PRASANNA.K.C., D/O.MADHAVI, AGED 50 YEARS, K.C.NIVAS, TAMATHERU PUZHATHI AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670002. 7. SREELAKSHMI.K.C., D/O.MADHAVI, AGED 47 YEARS, K.C.NIVAS, RAMATHERU PUZHATHI AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670002. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## K. SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No. 139 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20[th] day of May, 2016. ## ORDER ## K. Surendra Mohan, J. The tenant is in revision before us challenging the order of the Rent Control Court, Kannur in R.C.P. No. 297 of 2004, confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery in R.C.A. 200 of 2010. 2. The respondents are the landlords. They had filed the Rent Control Petition under Section 5 of Act 2 of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking fixation of fair rent for the tenanted building. 3. The building was taken on rent by the petitioner on 1.4.1967 on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. The rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs.150/- per month with effect R.C.R.139/2016. 2 from 14.5.1982. It is the said rent that is being paid by the tenant, to this date. According to the respondents, the building is situate by the side of the National Highway at Puthiyatheru. Over the years, the locality has improved and has acquired commercial importance. The building has an area of 2500 sq.ft. and considering the location of the building, rent at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.ft. was claimed. In other words, the landlords wanted the rent to be enhanced to Rs.7,500/- per month. According to the landlords, the prevailing rent in the locality was Rs.5/- per sq.ft. 4. The contentions of the respondents were resisted by the tenant. The landlord tenant relationship was admitted. It was also admitted that the rent that was presently being paid, i.e., Rs.150/- per month, was low. The tenant was willing to accede to a reasonable enhancement. At the same time, it was contended that the building was very old R.C.R.139/2016. 3 and that it was a tiled structure with very limited amenities, that could not command the rent that was sought to be fixed by the landlords. The Building Tax Assessment Register of the Local Authority was relied upon to substantiate the contention that the rent demanded was exorbitant. The tenant even offered to enhance the rent by 300%. 5. The Rent Control Court let in evidence and after considering the rival contentions, fixed the rent at Rs.1,500/per month from the date of the petition till 31.5.2009 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per month. 6. The aggrieved landlords carried the matter in appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the evidence afresh, in the light of the contentions advanced before it, and found that the rent fixed by the Rent Control Court was reasonable and that no interference therewith was called for. The aggrieved R.C.R.139/2016. 4 tenant is before us challenging the said judgment. 7. We have heard Adv. M.R. Venugopal, who appears for the tenant. According to the learned counsel, the parameters that were required to be considered, going by the dictum laid down by this Court in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004(1) K.L.T. 767), have not been considered by both the Authorities below. There is a total lack of evidence in this case regarding the actual rent that is prevailing in the locality. Though it was contended that the locality had developed and had acquired commercial importance, no evidence was adduced on the said aspect. The buildings that were referred to by the landlords were recent constructions with far better amenities than the tenanted premises. The fact that the tenanted premises were old with not even proper road frontage was also a matter that was not considered by the Authorities. Since the tenant was willing for an R.C.R.139/2016. 5 enhancement upto 300%, it is contended that the rent should be fixed at the said rate. The present rent fixed, according to the learned counsel, is exorbitant and is liable to be interfered with. 8. Heard. We notice that an Advocate Commissioner had conducted an inspection of the premises and had placed on record Ext.C1 Commission Report graphically describing the tenanted premises. The petitioner is conducting a business in furniture and going by Ext.C1 Commission Report, his business is flourishing. He has been in occupation of the tenanted premises for the past about 49 years. He is conducting a lucrative business, but has been paying only an amount of Rs.150/- per month as rent. As rightly noticed by the Appellate Authority, the said amount is not even sufficient for meeting the expenses of a single meal in a reasonable hotel, at present. We notice that the premises R.C.R.139/2016. 6 in question is having an area of 2500 sq.ft. Considering the nature of the business that is being conducted, we have no doubt in our minds that the petitioner is in a position to pay the rent that has been fixed by the Authorities below, without any difficulty. Upto 31.5.2009 only an amount of Rs.1,500/per month has been directed to be paid. The rent fixed for the period after 31.5.2009 is only Rs.2,250/-. The said rent does not even work out to Re.1/- per sq.ft. The Advocate Commissioner has reported that the premises are stacked with various types of furniture indicating that the petitioner is doing well in his business. It is only in the fitness of things that when the tenant is flourishing in his business, the landlord is also compensated in a reasonable manner. We are not satisfied that the rent fixed is exorbitant warranting interference therewith. The authorities below have considered the various aspects of the matter elaborately and properly. R.C.R.139/2016. 7 9. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference with the impugned order. The Revision is therefore dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner seeks the grant of some time to deposit the arrears of rent before the Execution Court where proceedings in execution are stated to be pending. The petitioner is granted six weeks time from today to deposit the amount. Sd/JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN Sd/MARY JOSEPH JUDGE sb