High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-12-13Dismissed in part and allowed in part; 10% peri...

Rent Control Revision Nos. 20 of 2018, 21 of 2018, 23 of 2018, 24 of 2018, 25 of 2018, 26 of 2018, 27 of 2018, 30 of 2018 and connected cases (Sefiya and others vs. landlords) – High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:RCRev Nos. 20/2018, 21/2018, 23/2018, 24/2018, 25/2018, 26/2018, 27/2018, 30/2018; RCRev Nos. 136/2019, 150/2019, 189/2019, 190/2019, 203/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B.SURESH KUMAR
C.S. SUDHA
Judgment Date: 2022-12-13
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, R.C.Rev.Nos.20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 of 2018 are dismissed and R.C.Rev.Nos.136, 150, 189, 190 and 203 of 2019 are allowed in part, modifying the impugned decisions, limiting the periodic revision of fair rent to 10% once in three years.
Final Disposition: Dismissed in part and allowed in part; 10% periodic revision cap every three years adopted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SEFHIYA
RAZIYA
REMLATH
BALKKIES
MUHAMMED RAFI
RASHEED
RAHMATH

Respondents

GEORGE
PAULY
ANTONY
CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR @ MUTHU
DAVIES @ DAVID
EVERLASTING KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD.
MAJO

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Santhosh P. Poduval
• Smt. Neethu Raj
• Smt. Rajitha
• Smt. Rashida Chemmmenampally

Counsels for Respondents

• Santhosh P. Poduval
• Smt. Rajitha
• Smt. Neethu Raj
• Smt. Rashida Chemmenampally

Case Synopsis & Summary

These batch of Rent Control revision petitions arise from proceedings under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 concerning eight rooms in a commercial complex at Chavakkad, Thrissur. The Rent Control Court fixed fair rents on the basis of oral evidence and limited documents, with a uniform rate for ground-floor rooms and a lower rate for first-floor rooms, plus a 5% annual increase in the fixation. The Appellate Authority modified these determinations, and the landlords/tenants challenged these orders under Section 20 of the Act, asserting errors in the approach and evidentiary basis. The landlords argued that market-value considerations and cost-of-living escalations warranted higher rents and more frequent revisions, while the tenants contended the evidence did not justify higher figures and that procedural safeguards (such as commissioning a formal valuation) were not properly employed. The High Court, in a two-judge Division Bench, held that Section 20 review is constrained to legality, regularity and propriety of the orders and cannot entail re‑appreciation of evidence on questions of fact. Relying on Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria, Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh and Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan, the court concluded the impugned orders were not illegal but warranted limited correction. Consequently, RCRev Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 of 2018 were dismissed and RCRev Nos. 136, 150, 189, 190 and 203 of 2019 were allowed in part, limiting the periodic revision of fair rent to 10% once in three years. The judgment was delivered by P.B. Suresh Kumar, J., and C.S. Sudha, J.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Interference under Section 20 confined to legality, regularity and propriety of orders; no re-appreciation of evidence (cited Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh)
Perverse findings or findings based on no evidence or misreading may be corrected under Section 20 (as per Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh)
Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004) 1 KLT 767 – applied as authority for the standard of review under Section 20

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants (SEFHIYA and others) challenged the fixation of fair rent and the appellate alterations, arguing that the orders under Section 20 are reviewable only for legality, regularity, and propriety and not for re‑appreciation of evidence. They contended the absence of a formal valuation/Commission and reliance on limited oral documents undermined the evidentiary basis for higher rents, and that the market-value evidence should be weighed carefully. They urged adherence to the protective cadence of revisions (per case law) and emphasized that the 5% annual increase and existing rates could not be assumed to reflect fair rent without proper valuation; they relied on precedents (Edger Ferus, Hindustan Petroleum) to limit interference to legality and propriety and to ensure no overreach into factual re‑assessment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the Rent Control Court’s findings were based on admissible evidence and correctly applied the statutory framework. They contended the appellate modifications reflect sound analysis of the same evidence under Section 20 and that the court should not substitute its own evaluation of facts. They maintained that the landlord’s market-value arguments justify higher rent levels and that the prescribed cadence for periodic revision (as guided by prior Supreme Court authority) is appropriate, though the High Court is entitled to correct illegality or impropriety where present. They supported the 10% cap for periodic revision as aligned with jurisprudence, and urged stability in rent fixation pending ongoing regimes of rent control.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria	2004 (1) KLT 767	Positive	Cited to justify the standard of review under Section 20; emphasizes limited re-appreciation of facts.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh	(2014) 9 SCC 78	Positive	Used to justify that only perverse findings can be corrected under Section 20; standard of review described.
Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan	AIR 2011 SC 1940	Positive	Supports the proposition that rent revision is allowed only once in three years; informs the 10% cap decision.

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. 20 of 2018, 21 of 2018, 23 of 2018, 24 of 2018, 25 of 2018, 26 of 2018, 27 of 2018, 30 of 2018 and connected cases (Sefiya and others vs. landlords) – High Court of Kerala 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1944** ## **RCREV. NO. 20 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.63 OF 2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.218 OF 2011 DATED 30.01.2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SEFHIYA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 BALKKIES, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** -: 2 :- ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. **6 RASHEED, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **7 RAHMATH, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEFHIYA (1ST APPELLANT)** **BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.S.R.NEETHU RAJ SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.RASHIDA CHEMMENAMPALLY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **GEORGE, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKU, KANNATHU HOUSE, KANJANY DESOM, MANALUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 3 :- ## **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. 21 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.83 OF 2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.220 OF 2011 DATED 30.01.2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SEFHIYA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 BALKKIES, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 4 :- - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **6 RASHEED,** - **AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **7 RAHMATH,** **AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEFHIYA (1ST APPELLANT)** **BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.S.R.NEETHU RAJ SMT.RASHIDA CHEMMENAMPALLY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **PAULY,** **AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.VADAKKETHALA CHAKKU, PONALLUR DESOM, MANALUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 617.** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 5 :- ## **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. 23 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.55 OF 2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 30.01.2016 IN RCA NO.215 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SEFHIYA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 BALKKIES, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 6 :- - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **6 RASHEED,** - **AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **7 RAHMATH,** **AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEFHIYA (1ST APPELLANT)** **BY ADVS SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.S.R.NEETHU RAJ SMT.RASHIDA CHEMMENAMPALLY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** ## **ANTONY** **AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.KOCHAPPU, PUTHOOR HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 510. BY ADV SRI.RAJIT** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 7 :- ## **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. 24 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.103 OF 2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DATED30.01.2016 IN RCA NO.216 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SEFHIYA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 BALKKIES, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 8 :- - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **6 RASHEED, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **7 RAHMATH,** **AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEFHIYA (1ST APPELLANT) BY ADVS.** **SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.S.R.NEETHU RAJ SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.RASHIDA CHEMMENAMPALLY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **EVERLASTING KURIES AND LOANS [P] LTD., R.NO.13 MYTHRY BUILDING, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 510, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 9 :- ## **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. 25 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.108 OF 2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DAETD 30.01.2016 IN RCA NO.219 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SEFHIYA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 BALKKIES, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** -: 10 :- ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **6 RASHEED, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **7 RAHMATH,** **AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEFHIYA (1ST APPELLANT) BY ADVS.** **SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.S.R.NEETHU RAJ SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.RASHIDA CHEMMENAMPALLY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **MAJO AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, PURATHOOR HOUSE, R.NO. 1, MYTHRY BUILDING, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 510** **BY ADV SRI.RAJIT** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 11 :- ## **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. 26 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.104 OF 2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DATE 30.01.2016 IN RCA NO.221 OF 2011 DATED 30.01.2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SEFHIYA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 BALKKIES, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 12 :- - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **6 RASHEED, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **7 RAHMATH, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEFHIYA (1ST APPELLANT) BY ADVS.** **SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.S.R.NEETHU RAJ SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.RASHIDA CHEMMENAMPALLY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **ANTO JOHNSON, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, THYKKATTIL HOUSE, R.NO. 12, 1 FLOOR, MYTHRY BUILDING, VENKITANGU VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 510 ADV.RAJIT** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 13 :- ## **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. 27 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.105 OF 2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 30.01.2016 IN RCA NO.217 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SEFHIYA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 BALKKIES, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 14 :- - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **6 RASHEED, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **7 RAHMATH,** **AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEFHIYA (1ST APPELLANT) BY ADVS.** **SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.S.R.NEETHU RAJ SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.RASHIDA CHEMMENAMPALLY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR @ MUTHU,** **S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PILLAKKATTIL HOUSE, R.NO.15, MYTHRY BUILDING, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 510. BY ADV SRI.RAJIT** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 15 :- ## **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. 30 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCP NO.57 OF 2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.213 OF 2011 DATED 30.01.2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL** **MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SEFHIYA AGED 70 YEARS W/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAZIYA AGED 51 YEARS,D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 REMLATH AGED 44 YEARS,D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 16 :- - **4 BALKKIES AGED 42 YEARS,D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI** - **AGED 41 YEARS,S/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **6 RASHEED AGED 39 YEARS,S/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **7 RAHMATH** **AGED 36 YEARS,D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEFHIYA) 1ST APPELLANT)** **BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.S.R.NEETHU RAJ SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.RASHIDA CHEMMENAMPALLY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** ## **DAVIES@DAVID** **S/O. PAILPPAN, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE,VENKITANGU VILLAGE & DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506** ## **BY ADV SRI.RAJIT** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 17 :- **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. 136 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.108 OF 2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.219 OF 2011 DATED 30.01.2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **MAJO, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, PURATHOOR HOUSE, R.NO.1, MYTHRY BUILDING, VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAJIT SMT.PARVATHY MANOJ** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 SEFHIYA, AGED 64 YEARS W/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** -: 18 :- ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 45 YEARS** **D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 38 YEARS** - **D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 BALKKEES, AGED 36 YEARS** **D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 35 YEARS** **S/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **6 RASHEED, AGED 33 YEARS** **S/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **7 RAHMATH, AGED 30 YEARS** **D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.S.R.NEETHU RAJ** **SMT.R.RAJITHA** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..150/2019, 203/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 19 :- ## **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. 150 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.103 OF 2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.216 OF 2011 DATED 30.01.2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **EVERLASTING KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., ROOM NO. 13, MYTHRY BUILDING, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE DESOM, VENKIDANGU P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV P.RAMACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 SEFHIYA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, W/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE DESOM, VENKIDANGU P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 510** -: 20 :- ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. - **2 RAZIYA,** **AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE DESOM, VENKIDANGU P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 510** - **3 REMLATH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE DESOM, VENKIDANGU P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 510** - **4 BALKKEES, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE DESOM, VENKIDANGU P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 510** - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE DESOM, VENKIDANGU P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 510** - **6 RASHEED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE DESOM, VENKIDANGU P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 510** - **7 RAHMATH,** - **AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VENKIDANGU VILLAGE DESOM, VENKIDANGU P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 510** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL** **SMT.R.RAJITHA** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 21 :- **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. 189 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.57 OF 2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.213 OF 2011 DATED 30.01.2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **DAVIES @ DAVID AGED 54 YEARS S/O.PAILPPAN,KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680510.** **BY ADVS. RAJIT SMT.PARVATHY MANOJ** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 SEFHIYA AGED 64 YEARS W/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH(H),VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680510.** ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. - -: 22 :- - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 45 YEARS** **D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH(H),VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680510.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 38 YEARS** - **D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH(H),VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680510.** - **4 BALKKEES, AGED 36 YEARS** **D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH(H),VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680510.** - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 35 YEARS** **S/O LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH(H),VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680510.** - **6 RASHEED, AGED 33 YEARS** - **S/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH(H),VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680510.** - **7 RAHMATH, AGED 30 YEARS** **D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI,MATHILAKATH(H),VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680510.** ## **BY ADV.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 23 :- ## **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. 190 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.105 OF 2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.217 OF 2011 DATED 30.01.2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR @ MUTHU AGED 60 YEARS** **S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PILLAKKATTIL HOUSE, R. NO. 15, MYTHRY BUILDING, VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. RAJIT SMT.PARVATHY MANOJ** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 SEFHIYA AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 24 :- - **2 RAZIYA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.** - **3 REMLATH, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.** - **4 BALKEES, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.** - **5 MUHAMMEDRAFI, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.** - **6 RASHEED AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.** - **7 RAHMATH,** - **AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. BY ADV.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 25 :- ## **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. 203 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2011 IN RCP NO.55 OF 2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.215 OF 2011 DATED 30.01.2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **ANTONY AGED 73 YEARS S/O.KOCHAPPU, PUTHOOR HOUSE, VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT680 510.** **BY ADVS. RAJIT SMT.PARVATHY MANOJ** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 SEFHIYA AGED 70 YEARS W/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.** ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 26 :- - **2 RAZIYA AGED 51 YEARS D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.** - **3 REMLATH AGED 44 YEARS D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.** - **4 BALKKEES AGED 42 YEARS** **D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.** - **5 MUHAMMED RAFI AGED 41 YEARS S/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.** - **6 RASHEED AGED 39 YEARS** **S/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.** **7 RAHMATH AGED 36 YEARS D/O.LATE HAMEED HAJI, MATHILAKATH (H), VENKITANGU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.** **BY ADV.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..136/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 27 :- ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** **R.C.Rev. Nos.20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 of 2018 136, 150, 189, 190 and 203 of 2019** ## **-----------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 13[th] day of December, 2022.** ## **O R D E R** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** These revision petitions arise from R.C.P.Nos.103 of 2004, 104 of 2004, 105 of 2004, 108 of 2004, 55 of 2005, 57 of 2005, 63 of 2005 and 83 of 2005 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad. They were proceedings mainly under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) for fixation of fair rent in respect of eight different rooms in a commercial complex occupied by different tenants, of which three rooms are in the ground floor of the building and the remaining five rooms are in the first floor of the building. The areas of the rooms are 397 sq.ft., 315 sq.ft., 135 sq.ft., R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 28 :- 135 sq.ft, 120 sq.ft., 135 sq.ft., 250 sq.ft. and 132 sq.ft. respectively and the tenants were paying rent for the rooms at the rate of Rs.440, Rs.400, Rs.250, Rs.700/-, Rs.300/-, Rs.300/-, Rs.300 and Rs.325/- respectively. The Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent for the ground floor rooms uniformly at Rs.7/- per sq.ft. and for the first floor rooms uniformly at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. with 5% increase for every year. The landlords challenged the decision of the Rent Control Court in appeals on the ground that the fixation of fair rent made is inadequate. The tenants in R.C.P.Nos.105 of 2004, 108 of 2004, 55 of 2005, 57 of 2005, 63 of 2005 and 83 of 2005 also challenged the decision of the Rent control Court in appeals on the ground that the fixation of fair rent made is excessive. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals preferred by the tenants and allowed the appeals preferred by the landlords by raising the fair rent for the ground floor rooms to Rs.10/- per sq.ft. from Rs.7/- sq.ft. fixed by the Rent Control Court and by raising the fair rent for the first floor rooms to Rs.7/- per sq. from Rs.5/- per sq.ft. fixed by the Rent ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 29 :- Control Court. It is against the decisions of the Rent Control Court as modified by the Appellate Authority that both the landlords and the tenants have come up in these revision petitions. Among the revisions, R.C.Rev.Nos.20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 of 2018 are by the landlords and R.C.Rev.Nos.136, 150, 189, 190 and 203 of 2018 are by the tenants. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the landlords as also learned counsel for the tenants. 3. The building, of which the tenanted premises are part, belonged to one Hameed Haji. The landlords in the proceedings are his legal representatives. They have claimed in the proceedings rent at the rate of Rs.15 per sq.ft. for the rooms in the first floor and Rs.20 per sq.ft. for the rooms in the ground floor. It was alleged by them, among others, that the market value of the building has increased many-fold after the entrustment of the premises to the tenants. It was also alleged by the landlords that the cost of living also increased many-fold ## R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 30 :- after the entrustment. It was further alleged by them that the prevailing rent of similar and identical premises in the locality is far above the rent that is being paid by the tenants. 4. The materials indicate that the landlords have not taken out a Commission as is usual in similar proceedings to ascertain and report the nature of the building, the amenities attached to it, the commercial importance of the locality etc. It is seen that in the circumstances, it is based on the oral evidence and a few documents produced by the parties that the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent. However, in appeal, it is seen that it is having regard to the criteria laid down by this Court in **Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria** , 2004 (1) KLT 767, the Appellate Authority modified the decision of the Rent Control Court. Needless to say, the impugned decisions are decisions rendered on pure questions of facts based on the available evidence. It is now trite that in exercise of the power under Section 20 of the Act, this Court can come to a different conclusion only by confining itself to legality, R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. **==> picture [33 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** regularity and propriety of the orders impugned and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion on a question of fact. Only findings of facts which are perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence, or findings which are based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence, or findings which are grossly erroneous and the same, if allowed to stand, would result in gross miscarriage of justice, can be corrected under Section 20 of the Act [See **Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh** , (2014) 9 SCC 78]. Needless to say, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned decisions warranting interference of this Court under Section 20 of the Act as regards the fixation of fair rent. 5. But, as noted, the Rent Control Court granted revision of the fair rent fixed at 5% every year and the directions issued by the Rent Control Court in this regard have not been interfered with by the Appellate Authority. In **Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan,** AIR 2011 SC R.C.Rev.Nos.20 of 2018 and con. cases. **==> picture [33 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 1940, the Apex Court held that the landlord in a proceedings for fixation of fair rent is entitled to revision of the fair rent only once in three years. In the light of the said decision, the impugned decisions are liable to be interfered with, insofar as they relate to the revision of fair rent granted by the authorities. Having regard to the orders passed by us in similar and identical revisions, we deem it appropriate to fix the periodic revision of fair rent to 10% once in three years. In the result, R.C.Rev.Nos.20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 of 2018 are dismissed and R.C.Rev.Nos.136, 150, 189, 190 and 203 of 2019 are allowed in part, modifying the impugned decisions, limiting the periodic revision of fair rent to 10% once in three years. **Sd/-** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** **Sd/-** ## **C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** YKB