R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 v. Prof. Dr. Saidh Hussain Shah and others

R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 1 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ``` RCREV. NO. 152 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 87/2016 OF I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ,THRISSUR ``` ``` RCP 71/2011 OF RENT CONTROLLER,THRISSUR ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONERS /APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:`** ``` JOHN @ LONACHAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O KUTTICHACKU JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS NEAR 1 PALLIKULAM ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, CHEMBUKKAVU P O, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020 ROSEMOL, AGED 44 YEARS D/O KUTTICHACKU JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS NEAR 2PALLIKULAM ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, CHEMBUKKAVU P O, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020 BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND LEGAL HEIRS OF 3RD RESPONDENT:`** ``` 1PROF. DR. SAIDH HUSSAIN SHAH S/O PROF. SAIDH MUHAYUDDHEEN SHAH, ``` R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 2 ``` RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS SHAH ABAD VEEDU, KOORKENCHERY P O, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680006 ANTHONYS K J S/O K L JOSE, 2KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, SHANTHI VIHAR ROAD, KURIACHIRA P O, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 686006 GEORGE K J, S/O K L JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS , 3 KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, PENTA HOME, CHELAKKOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680005 DENNY K J, S/O LATE K A JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS , 4KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, SANTHOSH STREET, KURIACHIRA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 686006 CHACKO, S/O LATE K A JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS , 5 KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, SANTHOSH STREET, KURIACHIRA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 686006 JOYSON, S/O LATE K A JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS , 6KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, SANTHOSH STREET, KURIACHIRA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 686006 JOYSY BABU, D/O JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS 7 KOLLANNUR THARAYIL HOUSE, 1ST AVENUE ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680005 BY SRI. BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13), SRI.VAISAKH V (CAVEATOR) ``` R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 3 ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2023, ALONG WITH RCR 155/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 4 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR &`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 20THDAY OF JULY 2023 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ## **`RCREV. NO. 155 OF 2023`** ## **`AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 98/2016 OF I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ,THRISSUR`** ## **`RCP 71/2011 OF RENT CONTROLLER,THRISSUR`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONERS /RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2/ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:`** ``` JOHN @ LONACHAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O KUTTICHACKU JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS NEAR 1 PALLIKULAM ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, CHEMBUKKAVU P O, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020 ROSEMOL, AGED 44 YEARS D/O KUTTICHACKU JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS NEAR 2PALLIKULAM ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, CHEMBUKKAVU P O, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020 ``` ``` BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9/PETITIONER AND LEGAL HEIRS OF 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION :`** ``` 1PROF. DR. SAIDH HUSSAIN SHAH S/O PROF. SAIDH MUHAYUDDHEEN SHAH, ``` R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 5 ``` RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS SHAH ABAD VEEDU, KOORKENCHERY P O, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680006 ANTHONYS K J S/O K L JOSE, 2KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, SHANTHI VIHAR ROAD, KURIACHIRA P O, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 686006 GEORGE K J, S/O K L JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS , 3 KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, PENTA HOME, CHELAKKOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680005 DENNY K J, S/O LATE K A JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS , 4 KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, SANTHOSH STREET, KURIACHIRA P O THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 686006 CHACKO, S/O LATE K A JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS , 5 KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, SANTHOSH STREET, KURIACHIRA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 686006 JOYSON, S/O LATE K A JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS , KUTTICHACKU HOUSE, SANTHOSH 6 STREET, KURIACHIRA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 686006 JOYSY BABU, D/O JOSE, 7RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS KOLLANNUR THARAYIL HOUSE, 1ST AVENUE ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680005 BY SRI. BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13), SRI.VAISAKH V (CAVEATOR) ``` ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2023, ALONG WITH RCR 152/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 6 ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ** **............................................................** ## **RCRev. Nos.152 and 155 of 2023** ............................................................. Dated this the 20[th] day of July, 2023 ## **O R D E R** ## Mohammed Nias C.P., J. The tenants, respondents 1 and 2 in RCP No.71/2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, are the revision petitioners herein. The said application was filed by the first respondent herein/the landlord for fixation of fair rent under Section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act'). The landlord's contention was that the petition scheduled shop rooms were let out to respondents 1 and 2 in the rent control petition for a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- and considering the importance of the locality and other relevant factors, the landlords' are entitled to get the rent at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. Since the tenants are paying Rs.700/- only as rent, he sought for fixation of fair rent at Rs.30,000 /- per month. 2. The tenants resisted the petition contending that the grandfather of the tenants has spent Rs.15,000/- in the year 1959 for the purpose of constructing the petition R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 7 schedule shop rooms and that was taken into consideration while determining the monthly rate of the rooms from time to time. It is also their contention that there is no toilet or parking facility for the rooms and that the location of the building is also not prominent. 3. On the side of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.C1 commission report were marked. The trial court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record and following the principles laid down by this Court in **Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria [2004 (1) KLT 767]** , which laid down the guidelines for fixing fair rent, found that the rooms were situated in a commercially important area where there are several shop rooms and other establishments, which was proved by the commission report. The trial court also found that the respondents did not adduce any evidence to disprove the commissioner's report. The disadvantages of the building _viz._ , lack of parking or toilet facility, were considered by the trial court and accordingly fixed Rs.7,560/- as the fair rent payable by the tenants under Section 5 of the Act. 4. The landlord filed RCA No.98/2016 and the tenants filed RCA No.87/2016 against the judgment of the Rent Control Court. The appeals were heard together and by a common judgment, the appeal filed by the landlord was partly allowed fixing the fair rent at Rs.10,800/- per month and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. The appellate court found that the contractual rate of rent was never enhanced after the letting and taking into R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 8 account the report of the advocate commissioner, found that the rooms were situated in a commercially prominent area. The age of the building and the principles of law laid down in **Khader Pillai v. Goven Travels [2014 (4) KLT 593]** and **State Bank of India v. Prasanna Kumari and others [ILR 2019 (2) Kerala 645]** were relied on besides taking judicial notice of the factum of inflation and the resultant reduction in purchasing power of money and variation in the cost of living index to hold that for a building having an area of 1080 sq. ft., calculating at Rs.10/- per sq. ft. fixed Rs.10,800/- per month as the fair rent. Aggrieved by the common judgment, these revisions are filed. 5. We have heard Sri. G. Sreekumar Chelur, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as Sri.Babu Karukappadath, who entered appearance for the respondents on caveat. 6. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the available record, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the appellate authority. The appellate authority had considered the evidence adduced and came to the conclusion that the rooms were situated in a commercially important area. The advantages as well as the disadvantages pointed out were considered before arriving at the fair rent. The principles of law laid down by this Court have been considered. The report of the advocate commission is also taken into account apart from considering the factors of inflation and the cost of living index for the area. The appellate court was right in appreciating the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary while R.C.Rev.Nos.152 & 155 of 2023 9 partly allowing the appeal filed by the landlord and enhancing the rent fixed by the trial court which was not even Rs.10/- per sq. ft. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the appellate authority, much less in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. The rent control revisions lack merit and the same will stand dismissed. Sd/- **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,** **JUDGE** okb/