RCRev. No. 47 of 2016 (RCR 47/2016) & Cross Objection No. 29/2016, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/15TH JYAISHTA, 1939** **RCRev..No. 47 of 2016 () ------------------------** **RCA 51/2014 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT) COURT, KOZHIKODE. RCP 125/2012 OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL(ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF) COURT-II, KOZHIKODE.** **........** ## **PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------** **1. THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI-110001.** **2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** **3. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, CALICUT-673011.** **4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, POST STORES DEPOT, CALICUT-673002.** **BY SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, CGC** **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------** **1. ULLATTUTHODIYIL RAJKUMAR, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 65 YEARS, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, POST CHERUVANNUR-673655.** **--2--** **--2--** ## **RCRev..No. 47 of 2016 () ------------------------** **2. ULLATTUTHODIYIL MOHANAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 63 YEARS, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, POST CHERUVANNUR-673655.** **3. ULLATTUTHODIYIL PREMARAJAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 61 YEARS, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, POST CHERUVANNUR-673655.** **4. ULLATTUTHODIYIL SHOBHANA, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.AYYAPPAN, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, POST CHERUVANNUR-673655.** **5. ULLATTUTHODIYIL GEETHA SURESH, D/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 57 YEARS, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, POST CHERUVANNUR-673655.** **6. ULLATTUTHODIYIL ANIL KUMAR, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 56 YEARS, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, POST CHERUVANNUR-673655.** **R1-3,5,6 BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH SRI.P.P.BALAN SMT.M.MANJU** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2017 ALONG WITH CO.29/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **K.HARILAL & A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JJ.** ========================= **R.C.R.No.47/2016 & Cross Objection No.29/2016** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5[th] day of June, 2017 ## **O R D E R** ## K.Harilal J. The revision petitioners and respondents in R.C.R.No.47/2016 are the tenants (hereinafter referred to as the “tenants”) and the landlords respectively, in R.C.P.No.125/2012 on the files of the Additional Rent Control Court-II, Kozhikode. The said R.C.P. is filed by the landlords (hereinafter referred to as the “landlords”) under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the “Act”) for fixation of fair rent. The rent control court fixed fair rent of the building at the rate of Rs.77,000/- (Rs.10/- per sq.ft.) per month from the date of the rent control petition. Challenging ``` RCR No.47/2016 & Cross.Objn. No.29/2016 ``` ## **-:2:-** the said order, the tenants approached the rent control appellate authority by filing R.C.A.No.51/2014. The lower appellate authority also confirmed the order fixing fair rent passed by the rent control court. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below fixing the fair rent is challenged in this revision, before this court, by the tenants. The landlords have filed cross-objection in R.C.R.No.47/2016 as Cross Objection No.29/2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the tenants and the learned counsel for the landlords. 3. According to the landlords, the rate of rent was not in accordance with the rate of rent prevailed at that time, in that locality, for similar buildings. Whereas, the tenants contended that the enhanced rent claimed by ``` RCR No.47/2016 & Cross.Objn. No.29/2016 ``` ## **-:3:-** the landlords could not have been allowed as it was exorbitant and unreasonable. 4. Indisputably, the rental arrangement has commenced in the year 1983 and the rate of rent was only Rs.5,000/- and the extent of the area is 7700 sq.ft. comprised in 45 cents of land. Subsequently, on 20.12.2000, the rent was enhanced to Rs.10,250/-. Thereafter, in the year 2009, the rent was again enhanced to Rs.17,000/- on certain conditions. The court below concurrently found that the landlords have not performed the condition for enhancement of rent and they failed to enter into an agreement for enhanced rent. In the above premise, the court below concurrently found that there was no enhancement from Rs.10,250/which was fixed in the year 2000. Hence, we find that ``` RCR No.47/2016 & Cross.Objn. No.29/2016 ``` ## **-:4:-** the claim of enhancement in rent was just and reasonable. 5. First of all, we must remind ourselves the scope and extent of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act, which is confined to legality and propriety and irregularity of the findings of the court below. This Court is not inclined to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record as the revision under Section 20 of the Act is not an appeal in disguise. Unless, the courts below fails to consider any relevant evidence or place reliance on any irrelevant evidence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 6. Bearing the above proposition in our mind, we have gone through the concurrent findings of the courts below, whereby the rent stands fixed at the rate of ``` RCR No.47/2016 & Cross.Objn. No.29/2016 ``` ## **-:5:-** Rs.10/- per sq.ft. The landlords claimed rent at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.ft. and the tenants denied the same and contended that the landlords are not entitled to get rent enhanced at the said rate. As rightly held by the courts below, while fixing fair rent, the prevailing rent of the locality with respect to similar buildings, escalation in the prices of building materials, cost of construction etc. have to be taken into consideration. In addition to that this court in **Edger Ferus v. Abraham Etticheria [2004 (1) KLT 767]** has issued certain guidelines, as parameters, for fixation of fair rent. Ext.C1 is the report filed by the Commissioner, along with Exts.C1(a) and C (b) plan and sketch, after conducting a local investigation with respect to the prevailing rent in the locality for similar buildings. In Ext.C1 report, the Commissioner reported that there is a building in the ``` RCR No.47/2016 & Cross.Objn. No.29/2016 ``` ## **-:6:-** neighbourhood, which is in possession of one company named P.L.Agro Technologies Ltd. and the area of the said building is 3000 sq.ft. According to the Commissioner, the rent of the said building was fixed at Rs.32,000/- per month as per agreement dated 25.5.2013. Since the said lease was of the year 2013, the rent fixed for the said building cannot be applied for fixing fair rent with respect to the petition schedule building in an application filed under Section 5 of the Act in the year 2012. That apart, even according to the Commissioner, there is a difference in the nature of the building. The petition schedule building is a tiled one whereas the said building in the occupation of P.L.Agro Technologies Ltd. is roofed with sheets. The Commissioner has inspected another building, which was in occupation of another company by name Madras ``` RCR No.47/2016 & Cross.Objn. No.29/2016 ``` ## **-:7:-** Cements Ltd. The said building was having an area of 3000 sq.ft. and the monthly rent was Rs.45,000/- per month. Besides that, the Commissioner has reported two other building, one having a plinth area of 6000 sq.ft. and the other having a plinth area of 5000 sq.ft. and the rent of the said premises were Rs.70,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively per month. The Commissioner has verified the agreement with respect to the building in occupation of P.L.Agro Technologies Ltd. only. The rent of the said building of P.L.Agro Technologies Ltd. was Rs.10.6 per sq.ft. and this rent was fixed in the year 2013. No other evidence had been produced either by the landlords or by the tenants. 7. After analysing the aforesaid evidence on record, the courts below concurrently found that the rent of the building occupied by P.L.Agro Technologies Ltd. is ``` RCR No.47/2016 & Cross.Objn. No.29/2016 ``` ## **-:8:-** almost similar, in all respects, to the petition schedule building; though, it cannot be taken as such, due to the difference in the year of agreement and the nature of construction of the building. In view of the evidence available on record, the courts below fixed fair rent at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. for the petition schedule building. We find that the fair rent concurrently fixed by the courts below is just and reasonable. 8. Neither the landlords nor the tenants have a case that the courts below have omitted to consider the relevant evidence or considered any irrelevant evidence. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. We do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. This rent control petition filed by the tenants and the cross- ``` RCR No.47/2016 & Cross.Objn. No.29/2016 ``` ## **-:9:-** objection filed by the landlords are dismissed accordingly. **Sd/K.HARILAL, JUDGE** **Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE** ms