R.C.R.No.373 and 377 of 2017

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **RCREV. NO. 373 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/7/2017 IN RCA 29/2014 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT), TIRUR AGAINST THE ORDER DTD 31/3/2014 IN RCP 27/2013 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF COURT), TIRUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** ## **JAUHARALI** **AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED HAJI, THRIKKANAPURAM AMSOM,DESOM,P.O.THRIKANAPURAM,PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SMT.M.R.MINI SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **RARAMKANDATH ABOOBACKER AGED 59 YEARS,S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED HAJI, THRIKKANAPURAM AMSOM DESOM,P.O.THRIKANAPURAM, PONNANI TALUK,MALAPPURAM,PIN-679576.** **BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SR.** ## **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING** **ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..377/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 **R.C.R.No.373 and 377 of 2017** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,** **1944** **RCREV. NO. 377 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 30/2014 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE COURT (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT), TIRUR AGAINST THE ORDER DTD 31/3/2014 IN RCP 26/2013 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF COURT), TIRUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **RARAMKANDATH USMANKOYA AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED HAJI, THRIKKANAPURAM AMSOM,DESOM, P.O, THRIKANAPURAM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SMT.M.R.MINI SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **RARAMKANDATH ABOOBACKER AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED HAJI, TRIKKANAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O THRIKANAPURAM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN - 679 576.** **BY ADVS.SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SR.** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..373/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 **R.C.R.No.373 and 377 of 2017** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **--------------------------------------------------** ## **R.C.R.No.373 and 377 of 2017** **------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of December, 2022** ## **O R D E R** ## **C.S.Sudha, J.** These rent control revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) have been filed against the judgment dated 29/07/2017 in R.C.A.No.29/2014 and 30/2014 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Tirur, which appeals have been filed against the order dated 31/03/2014 in R.C.P.No.27/2013 and 26/2013 respectively on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Tirur. The revision petitioners are the appellants and the respondents-tenants in the R.C.Ps. The respondent herein is the respondent in the appeal and the petitioner-landlord in the R.C.Ps. The parties and documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.Ps. 2. R.C.P.No.26/2013 and 27/2013 were filed by the petitionerlandlord, against two different respondents-tenants seeking fixation of fair rent under Section 5 of the Act. In R.C.P.No.26/2013, the allegation is that the petition schedule rooms were let out in the year 2008 to the respondents 4 ## **R.C.R.No.373 and 377 of 2017** for a monthly rent of ₹10,000/-. The rooms are situated in the first floor of the building. The room bearing No.KP-1/531 has an area of 1048 sq.ft. for which the rent fixed by the panchayth is ₹9,371/-. The room bearing No. KP-1/532 is having an area of 95 sq.ft and the rent fixed by the panchayath is ₹1,654/-. Therefore the total rent of the petition schedule rooms fixed by panchayat is ₹11,025/-. This rent is much lesser than the prevailing rent in the locality. The schedule rooms are housed in a building situated in a commercial area. The rent now being paid by the respondent for the rooms is quite meager. Similarly situated rooms are getting rent much higher than the rent being paid by the respondent. The market value of the property in which the building is situated is ₹8 lakhs per cent. The prevailing rent for the rooms in the ground floor in the locality is ₹20/- per sq.ft. So the petitioner is entitled to get rent at that rate. Hence he claimed rent @ ₹22,860/- per month with an annual enhancement of 10%. 3. The respondents-tenants filed counter denying the allegations in the R.C.P. According to them, the rent being paid is more than reasonable for the rooms taken on lease. The averments regarding the rent prevailing in the locality is incorrect and false. 4. In R.C.P.No.27/2013 the allegation is that the petition schedule room bearing no.1/534 was let out to the respondent in the year 1992 for a 5 ## **R.C.R.No.373 and 377 of 2017** monthly rent of ₹3,000/-. The rent of the room was enhanced to ₹6,000/- in the year 2009. The room bearing no.1/533 was let out to the respondent in the year 2008 for a monthly rent of ₹4,000/-. The room bearing no.1/534 is situated on the ground floor and the room bearing no.KP-1/533 is situated in the first floor of the building. The room in the ground floor has an area of 55 sq.ft. and the rent fixed by the panchayat is ₹6,615/-. The room situated in the first floor has an area of 656 sq.ft. and the rent fixed by the panchayat for the same is ₹4,410/-. Therefore the total rent for the schedule rooms fixed by the panchayat is ₹11,025/-, which is quite low compared to the rent prevailing in the locality. The petition schedule rooms are housed in a building situated in a very important commercial area. The prevailing rent of the rooms on the ground floor and the first floor is ₹30/- and ₹20/- per sq.ft. respectively. Hence the petitioner is entitled to get rent @ ₹29,830/- per month with an annual enhancement of 10%. 5. The respondent/tenant filed objection denying the allegations in the petition and contended that the rent being paid is fair rent of the building. The allegation regarding the prevailing rent in the locality is incorrect and false. 6. The RCC as per order in I.A.No.472/2014 and I.A.No.473/2014 ordered joint trial. R.C.P.No.26/2013 was taken as the main case in which 6 ## **R.C.R.No.373 and 377 of 2017** evidence was recorded. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the petitioners. RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B8 were marked on the side of the respondents. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the RCC partly allowed the R.C.Ps. by fixing the rent of the petition schedule rooms in R.C.P.No.26/2013 at ₹11,430/- per month from the date of the petition and for the petition schedule rooms in R.C.P.No.27/2013 @ ₹14,915/- per month w.e.f. from date of petition. The RCC also ordered enhancement of rent @ 5% per annum. The respondent-tenant preferred R.C.A.No.29/2014 and 30/2014 against the order of the RCC. The RCAA, in turn, has confirmed the order of the RCC. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the RCC and RCAA, the respondents-tenants have come up in revision. 7. The only point that arises for consideration is, whether the concurrent findings of the RCC or the RCAA suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 8. Heard Adv.M.R.Mini, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv.Deepa Naryanan, the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Section 20 of the Act allows the aggrieved party to challenge the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceeding of an Appellate Authority. The power of revision is limited to making a scrutiny of the records 7 ## **R.C.R.No.373 and 377 of 2017** to satisfy itself as to the three tests laid down in Section 20. The revisional court cannot convert itself into an evidence collecting or fact-finding Court. The scope of interference by the revisional court is restricted to cases where the RCC or RCAA have relied on irrelevant consideration, ignored valuable items of evidence, or applied wrong principles of law. Where there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the orders of the RCC or the RCAA, there is no justification for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. 10. On going through the records, we find that both the RCC as well as the RCAA have properly appreciated the evidence on record. We find no infirmity or illegality in the orders except relating to the annual enhancement of rent ordered. It was pointed out that the RCC has ordered revision of rent @ 5% per annum which is against the dictum of the Apex Court in **Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan, AIR 2011 SC 1940** . It is true that in **Mohammad Ahmad** ( _Supra_ ) the Apex Court has held that the landlord is entitled to enhancement of rent @ 10% every three years. Therefore to that extent, the impugned judgment requires to be interfered with. Further, it is admitted that pursuant to the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Act in R.C.P.No.12/2010 and 13/2010 filed by the petitioner against the respondent, the latter has vacated the premises on 15/01/2016. Therefore 8 ## **R.C.R.No.373 and 377 of 2017** from the date of the filing of R.C.P.No.26/2013 and R.C.P.No.27/2013 till the date they vacated the premises, the respondents would be liable to pay rent at the rate fixed by the RCC. In the result, the rent control revisions are partly allowed and the direction regarding revision of rent every year @ 5% is set aside. The order fixing the fair rent @ ₹11,430/- and ₹14,915/- respectively in the R.C.Ps. is confirmed. The petitioner shall be entitled to enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% every 3 years. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** Sd/- **C.S.SUDHA JUDGE** ami/