Unnikrishnan @ Ponnan, Murukan, Dinesan, Remani and Vilasini v. Dr. Johnny Joseph Pindies, Leela Joseph Pindies and Denny Joseph Pindies

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** **RCRev..No. 424 of 2017 () --------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 30/2017 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT)ERNAKULAM DATED 9.10.2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 104/2015 OF THE III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF(RENT CONTROL)COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 28.2.2017** **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** **---------------------------------------------** ## **1. UNNIKRISHNAN @ PONNAN** **S/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, "HOTEL EVEREST" DOOR NO XX/1144, NEAR ST. MARY'S NADAMEL CHURCH, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301.** **2. MURUKAN** - **S/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, "HOTEL EVEREST" DOOR NO XX/1144, NEAR ST. MARY'S NADAMEL CHURCH, TRIPUNITHURA,** - **PIN - 682 301.** **3. DINESAN AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN,"HOTEL EVEREST" DOOR NO XX/1144, NEAR ST. MARY'S NADAMEL CHURCH, TRIPUNITHURA,PIN - 682 301.** **4. REMANI** - **S/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, "HOTEL EVEREST" DOOR NO XX/1144, NEAR ST. MARY'S NADAMEL CHURCH, TRIPUNITHURA,PIN - 682 301.** ## **5. VILASINI** **AGED 82 YEARS, W/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN,"HOTEL EVEREST" DOOR NO XX/1144, NEAR ST. MARY'S NADAMEL CHURCH, TRIPUNITHURA,PIN - 682 301.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN** **SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS /PETITIONERS:** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **1. DR. JOHNY JOSEPH PINDIES** **S/O. LATE JOSEPH PINDIES, AGED 56 YEARS, PANNIPPILLIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, TRIPOONITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682 301.** ## **2. LEELA JOSEPH PINDIES** **W/O. LATE JOSEPH PINDIES, AGED 86 YEARS, PANNIPPILLIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, TRIPOONITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682 301.** ## **3. DENNY JOSEPH PINDIES** **S/O. LATE JOSEPH PINDIES, AGED 54 YEARS, PANNIPPILLIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, TRIPOONITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682 301.** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **19-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **K.HARILAL & A.M.BABU, JJ. .......................................... RCR No.424 of 2017 ........................................... Dated 19[th] December, 2017** ## **ORDER** ## **K.HARILAL, J.** The revision petitioners are the tenants in RCP No.104/2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The said Rent Control Petition was filed under Sec.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking an order fixing fair rent of the petition schedule building. The petition schedule building is a two-storied building situated in an extent of 3 cents in Nadama Village, Tripunithura. The said building is having an area of 2600 sq ft. According to the respondents/landlords, the existing rent is Rs.750/- per month and it is the enhanced rent from 15.8.1984 onwards. Originally, the rent was at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that the existing rent is a meagre amount only when comparing with the prevailing rent of the similar buildings in the locality. The petition schedule building is situated in the heart of Tripunithura Municipality and the property is worth Rs.50 lakhs per cent. Considering the variation in the living cost and the decrease in the money value caused by inflation, demand for accommodation in the locality, 2 RCR No.424 of 2017 commercial importance of the locality and prevailing rent of similar buildings in the locality, the respondents are liable to pay rent at least at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq ft. The highest rate prevailing in the locality for similar buildings is Rs.110/- per sq ft and the lowest rate is Rs.60/- per sq ft. However, the petitioners prayed for fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq ft. 2. The respondents resisted the claim for fair rent contending that the building is very old and dilapidated. According to the respondents, the locality is not so important as claimed by the petitioners and the prevailing rent in the locality is also similar to the rent of the petition schedule building. The petition schedule building is situated in a less important locality within the Municipality. None of the buildings in the locality can be compared with the petition schedule building as the petition schedule building is very old one, having more than 50 years old. Hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the application seeking fixation of fair rent. 3. On the aforesaid pleadings both parties adduced evidence which consists of Ext A1 to A8. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence the Rent Control Court fixed fair rent at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq ft. In the appeal, the appellate authority 3 RCR No.424 of 2017 confirmed the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Though, the petitioners also filed a crossobjection seeking enhancement of fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court, the appellate authority dismissed the said crossobjection also. Thus, the legality and propriety of the methodology adopted by the courts below in fixing the fair rent is under challenge in this revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners advanced arguments contending that the fair rent fixed by the courts below is exorbitant, without considering the prevailing rent of the similar buildings in the locality. So also it is contended that the courts below have went wrong by relying on Ext A5 to A8 produced by the petitioners. The sum and substance of the arguments that the petition schedule building is very old and dilapidated. So none of the buildings in the locality can be compared with the petition schedule building. But, the courts below have taken Ext A5 to A8 into consideration for fixing the fair rent. 6. In view of the arguments at the Bar, the short question that arises for consideration is whether there is any illegality or 4 RCR No.424 of 2017 impropriety in the methodology adopted by the courts below in fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule building. The locational importance of the locality is not seriously disputed. The petition schedule building is situated in a prime location in the Tripunithura town. The petition schedule building is a two-storied building situated in an extent of 3 cents at Tripunithura and is having an area of 2600 sq ft . According to the petitioners, the original rent up to 1984 was Rs.200/- per month and thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs.750/- per month on 15.8.1984 under an agreement. Thus the prevailing rent is Rs.750/- per month. But the respondents contended that there was no enhancement of rent after the commencement of lease and the prevailing rent of the petition schedule building is Rs.200/- per month only. However, the courts below have taken Rs.200/- as prevailing rent of the petition schedule building. The area of the building is not disputed. So also it is an undisputed fact that there was no revision of rent, despite the long lapse of decades after the commencement of the tenancy. The locational importance and the development of the locality, the long lapse of more than three decades after the commencement of tenancy and the variation in the living expenses and the decrease in the value of money 5 RCR No.424 of 2017 caused by inflation during the last three decades would justify the findings of the courts below that the petitioners are entitled to get enhanced rent. 7. Then, the only question to be considered is can the courts below be justified in fixing the quantum of fair rent at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq ft. The locational and commercial importance of the locality are not seriously challenged. The petition schedule property is situated at Tripunithura town. In order to prove the prevailing rent of the locality, the petitioners have produced Ext A5 to A8. Ext A5 to A8 are rent deeds of other buildings in the locality, which would show the prevailing rent of the buildings in that locality. The building leased out as per Ext A5 fetches Rs.50 per sq ft per month since 2011 and the said building is situated at a distance of 100 meters away from the petitions schedule building. Ext A6 shows that the building referred to in the said rent deed fetches Rs.111/- per sq ft per month since 2014 and the said building is also situated about 50 meters away from the petition schedule building. The building mentioned in Ext A7 is a building occupied by ICICI bank on rent and the said building fetches Rs.75.25 per sq ft. Ext A8 shows that the building referred to in the said rent deed fetches Rs.60 6 RCR No.424 of 2017 per sq ft in the year 2011. But, the courts below further found that the buildings referred to in Ext A5 to A8 are not exactly similar to or comparable with, the petition schedule building as the petition schedule building is very old, aged more than 50 years and the buildings referred to in Ext A5 to A8 are new buildings. But, the locational importance of the petition schedule building and the buildings referred to in Ext A5 to A8 are similar. Therefore, the courts below has not taken the prevailing rent of those buildings as a criteria for fixing the fair rent. But, after the balancing the oldness of the petition schedule building with the new buildings referred to in Ext A5 to A8 the courts below have substantially reduced the fair rent of the petition schedule building from the rent of the aforesaid buildings and fixed at Rs.12/- only. 8. That apart, the courts below have considered all the guidelines issued by this Court in **Edger Ferus vs Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1) KLT 767)** for fixing the fair rent. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has issued a guidelines relating to the matters which require to be considered in the fixation of fair rent and the courts below have meticulously followed the guidelines. The fair rent fixed by the courts below is justifiable, in 7 RCR No.424 of 2017 the light of the above decision also. 9. In the above analysis, we do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the methodology adopted by the courts below in fixing the fair rent. Accordingly, this Rent Control Revision is dismissed. **K.HARILAL Judge** **A.M.BABU Judge** _sks/19.12.2017_