High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-07-19Revision petitions and cross-objections dismiss...

Rent Control Revision Nos. 160 of 2011 and 161 of 2011; Cross Objections No. 47 of 2011, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011; RCRev. Nos. 160/2011 & 161/2011; CO No. 47 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Hariprasad
Shircy V.
Judgment Date: 2019-07-19
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petitions and cross-objections dismissed; the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority stands, fixing Rs. 4,000 per mensum for each room. All pending interlocutory applications are also dismissed.
Final Disposition: Revision petitions and cross-objections dismissed; Rent Control Appellate Authority’s fixation of Rs. 4,000 per mensum for each room stands; all interlocutory applications disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.A. Abdulla, S/o Arabi Beary

Respondents

Sekali Beary (deceased), Muslim landholder, Uppala Village, Kasaragod Taluk; LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED (ADDL.R2 to ADDL.R9): Pathumma, Aysha, Mariyumma, Moidu, N. Abdulla, Kairunnisa, Samia, Zubaida

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Kodoth Sreedharan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Geetha P. Menon
• Sri P.B. Krishnan
• Sri P.B. Subramanyan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated High Court judgment on two rent-control revision petitions (RCRev. Nos. 160/2011 and 161/2011) and their cross-objection (CO No. 47/2011), arising from two rooms in a building owned by Sekali Beary (deceased) and leased to the revision petitioner, P.A. Abdulla. The landlord sought to reconstruct under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, after which the tenant was re-inducted into two rooms at rent initially fixed by a Rent Control Court. On appeal, the Appellate Authority remanded for fresh consideration and the Rent Control Court re-fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1,750 per room per mensum. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority, considering locational importance and amenities, fixed Rs. 4,000 per mensum for each room. The tenant challenged this fixation, arguing it is excessive, while the landlord sought higher rent (up to Rs. 7,000). The High Court, after examining the evidence and the relevant legal considerations, held that no tangible reason existed to interfere with the Appellate Authority’s fixation and dismissed the revision petitions and cross-objections, affirming the Rs. 4,000 per mensum rate. The court also cited Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria as part of the judicial reasoning in evaluating relevant factors, and noted there was no illegality in the appellate fixation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner (tenant) contends that the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s fixation of Rs. 4,000 per mensum for each room is unjustified and excessively high given the building’s nature, locality, and amenities. The tenant points to the Rs. 1,750 per room fixed earlier by the Rent Control Court and argues that the Appellate Authority failed to provide a robust justification for such a steep enhancement. The petitioner asserts that relocation factors and market considerations support a lower rent, and that the Appellate Authority ought to have maintained or reduced the fixation, rather than increasing it to Rs. 4,000. The revision petitions challenge the higher rate as an error in appreciation of evidence, locality value, and the relevant statutory framework (Section 11(4)(iv)).

Contentions of Respondents

The landlord (respondents) pressed for a rent higher than Rs. 1,750, arguing that the location’s locational importance and amenities warrant a higher rent. They contended that Rs. 4,000 per mensum is still too low and that as per market realities the rent for the two rooms should be much higher (even up to Rs. 7,000 per room claimed at one stage). They urged the Court to uphold a rent reflecting the property’s location, access, and facilities, criticizing the lower fixation and emphasizing the need to balance tenant protection with fair compensation to the landlord.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria	2004 (1) K.L.T 767	Positive	The High Court refers to this authority while analyzing the criteria for determining rent — considering the nature of the building, locality, and amenities — and uses it to support its own reasoning without overruing or distinguishing it.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rent Control Revision Nos. 160 of 2011 and 161 of 2011; Cross Objections No. 47 of 2011, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** **RCRev..No.160 of 2011** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-12-2010 IN RCA 21/2004 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD.** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2004 IN I I.A NO.1003 OF 1999 IN RCP 26/1992 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KASARAGOD.** ## **REVISION PETITIONER(IST RESPONDENT/IST PETITIONER :** **P.A.ABDULLA, S/O ARABI BEARY, RESIDING AT UPPALA IN UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.UPPALA - 671 322.** **BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN.** ## **RESPONDENT(APPELLANT/RESPONDENT) :** **1 SEKALI BEARY, (DIED) MUSLIM LANDHOLDER, RESIDING AT HOIGA HOUSE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.UPPALA - 671 322. (LEGAL HEIRS IMPIEADED AS ADDL.R2 TO R9)** - **ADDL.R2 PATHUMMA, WIDOW OF SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671322.** R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 2 - **ADDL.R3 AYSHA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.R4 MARIYUMMA,W/O. B.K.MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT BAPPAITHOTTI, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.R5 MOIDU, S/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.R6 N. ABDULLA, S/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.R7 KAIRUNNISA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT ARIMALE HOUSE, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O., KANJESHWAR - 671 323.** - **ADDL.R8 SAMIA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT AMBIKANA HOUSE, PAIVALIKE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O., PAIVALIKA-671 348.** - **ADDL.R9 ZUBAIDA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT DEVAPPABATRA, MOOLE OF TALEKKAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. TALEKKALA-671 348.** - **(ADDITIONAL R2 TO R9 BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/03/2019 IN IA 2512/2011.)** **BY ADVS. SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, ALONG WITH CO.47/2011, RCRev.NO.161/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** **CO.No.47 of 2011 IN RCRev.. 160/2011** ## **- CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT IN R.C.R :** **SEKALI BEARY, (DIED) S/O MOIDU BEARY, MUSLIM LANDHOLDER, RESIDING AT HOIGA HOUSE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O UPPALA - 671 322.** **(LRS.IMPLEADED)** - **ADDL.CO2 PATHUMMA, WIDOW OF SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671322.** - **ADDL.CO3 AYSHA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.CO4 MARIYUMMA,W/O. B.K.MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT BAPPAITHOTTI, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.CO5 MOIDU, S/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 4 - **ADDL.CO6 N. ABDULLA, S/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.CO7 KAIRUNNISA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT ARIMALE HOUSE, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O., KANJESHWAR - 671 323.** - **ADDL.CO8 SAMIA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT AMBIKANA HOUSE, PAIVALIKE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O., PAIVALIKA-671 348.** - **ADDL.CO9 ZUBAIDA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT DEVAPPABATRA, MOOLE OF TALEKKAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. TALEKKALA-671 348.** - *** ADDL.CROSS OBJECTION 2 TO 9 BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASAED SOLE CROSS OBJECTOR ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13-03-2019 IN I.A NO.2512 OF 2011.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN R.C.R :** **P.A.ABDULLA, S/O ARABI BEARY, RESIDING AT UPPALA IN UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O UPPALA - 671 322.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN.** **THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev.NOS.161/2011 & 160/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 5 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** **RCRev..No.161 of 2011** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-12-2010 IN RCA 28/2004 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD.** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2004 IN I.A NO.1003 OF 1999 IN RCP 26/1992 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KASARAGOD.** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/ (APPELLANT/1ST PETITIONER) :** **P.A. ABDULLA, S/O ARABI BEARY, RESIDING AT UPPALA IN UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P O UPPALA - 671 322.** **BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN.** ## **RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) :** **SEKALI BEARY, (DIED) S/O MOIDU BEARY, MUSLIM LANDHOLDER, RESIDING AT HOIGA HOUSE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK , PO UPPALA - 671 322.** **(LEGAL HEIRS IMPIEADED AS ADDL.R2 TO R9)** *** ADDL.R2 PATHUMMA, WIDOW OF SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 6 *** ADDL.R3 AYSHA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.R4 MARIYUMMA,W/O. B.K.MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT BAPPAITHOTTI, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.R5 MOIDU, S/O. SEKHALI BEARY,** **RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.R6 N. ABDULLA, S/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.** - **ADDL.R7 KAIRUNNISA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY,** - **RESIDING AT ARIMALE HOUSE, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O., KANJESHWAR - 671 323.** - **ADDL.R8 SAMIA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY,** **RESIDING AT AMBIKANA HOUSE, PAIVALIKE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O., PAIVALIKA-671 348.** - **ADDL.R9 ZUBAIDA, D/O. SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT DEVAPPABATRA, MOOLE OF TALEKKAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. TALEKKALA-671 348.** *** ADDL.RESPONDENTS 2 TO 9 BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13-03-2019 IN I.A NO.2507/2011.** **BY ADVS. SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev.NO.160/2011, CO.47/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 7 ## A.HARIPRASAD & SHIRCY.V, J J. -------------------------------------- ## R..C.R No.160 OF 2011 ## & Cross Objection No.47 OF 2011 & ## R.C.R No.161 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2019 ## C O M M O N O R D E R ## A.HARIPRASAD, J Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and respondents. 2. The revision petitioner preferred two petitions challenging the fixation of fair rent in respect of two rooms belonging to the same landlord, which is outstanding in his possession in tenancy right. R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 8 3. The factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. The original respondent/landlord filed an application before the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'), for permitting him to reconstruct the building. After taking evidence, the application was allowed. After reconstruction, the revision petitioner was re-inducted into two rooms, for which Rs.600/- was the rent fixed for each room. 4. Pursuant to an order on I.A No.1003 of 1999, the Rent Control Court fixed Rs.600/- as market rent. Aggrieved by this fixation, both the landlord and tenant took up the matter in separate appeals. The appeals were jointly considered by the Appellate Authority and remanded the matters to the Rent Control Court for a fresh consideration. After considering the entire matters, the Rent Control Court re-fixed the fair rent of each room at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per mensum. R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 9 5. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties again went up in appeal. As per common judgment in R.C.A Nos.21 and 28 of 2004, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kasaragod considering the locational importance and the convenience in the room, fixed the rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- for each room. This finding is challenged in these revision petitions. We have also noticed a cross objection filed by the landlords/respondents claiming a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- for each room. The Rent Control Court has considered the nature of the building and importance of the locality in which it is situated and also the amenities provided in the room. Taking into consideration of all the matters, it fixed an amount of Rs.1,750/- per room. According to the revision petitioner, that was on a higher side. Landlord would contend that it is too meagre an amount, in the light of the importance of the locality in which the building is situated. Therefore, both sides went in appeal. R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 10 6. Appellate authority reconsidered the entire evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the claim made by the landlord for fixing the rent at the rate of Rs.7,000/- is on a higher side. But it found that Rs.1,750/- per month for each room is highly insufficient. Therefore, after considering the entire evidence, the Appellate authority re-fixed the rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per mensum for each room. 7. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the materials before us, we find no tangible reason to interfere with the factual findings arrived at by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has considered all relevant matters referred to in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1) K.L.T 767) . There is no illegality or impropriety in the re-fixation of rent by the Appellate Authority. It has stated valid reason for declining the prayer of fixing the monthly rent per room at the rate of Rs.7000/- raised by the landlord. R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 11 Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the revision petitions and cross objection. Hence, the revision petitions and the cross objection are dismissed affirming the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in these matters. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. SHIRCY.V, JUDGE amk