**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/8TH ASHADHA, 1939**
**RCRev..No. 187 of 2017**
**-----------------------**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 28/2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 10-02-2017.**
**AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 135/2012 OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROL COURT, DATED 20-02-2015.**
**REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------**
**V.M.PAILEE, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.P.MATHAI, DOOR NO.27/4314, PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, PERUMANOOR-682 015, RESIDING AT VADAKKEKUTTUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMANOOR, COCHIN-682 015.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.R.SANJITH SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH**
**RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------**
**ANNA JOHN CHACKOLA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOHN P.CHAKOLA, RESIDING AT PARIJATHAM HOUSE, PARIJATHAM ROAD, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY P.O.-682 033, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PAUL JOHN CHAKOLA, S/O.LATE JOHN P CHAKOLA, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARIJATHAM HOUSE, PARIJATHAM ROAD, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY P.O.-682 033.**
**THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
## _**K. HARILAL & P. SOMARAJAN., JJ.**_
_**--------------------------------------------------------R.C.R. No.187 of 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of June, 2017**_
## _**ORDER**_
## _**Harilal, J.**_
The revision petitioner is the tenant under the respondent herein. The respondent/landlord filed an application under Sec.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), seeking fixation of fair rent. According to the landlord, tenancy has commenced in the year 1959 and the rent was `20/- only. Thereafter, it was enhanced to `60/- and the said rent is inadequate, considering the development and potentiality of the place where the petition schedule building is situated, inflation and resultant increase in the cost
_**R.C.R. No.187 of 2017**_ -: 2 :-
of living index etc. The landlord further contends that the petition schedule building is situated in the heart of Cochin City, a junction, known as “Thevara” very near to the 'Sacred Heart College” and Cochin Shipyard etc. It is 500 Mtrs. Away from 'Thevara Junction'. The fair value of the property assessed in that area is `24,93,750/- per cent. Thus, the building is located in an area classified as commercially important land by the Government. In the prevailing circumstances and due to the commercial importance of the locality, where the building locates, the respondent is entitled to get fair rent. In the above premises, the respondent/landlord filed the aforesaid application.
2. The revision petitioner/tenant contended that the locality is so important, as claimed by the landlord; but he admitted that the existing rate of rent of th petition schedule building is `60/- only and he made an offer to pay `180/- per month. The tenant further contends that the building is an old fashioned one and the amenities provided to him are
_**R.C.R. No.187 of 2017**_ -: 3 :-
not sufficient. He is conducting a tailoring works of Naval service personnel and getting income for livelihood only. Therefore, the landlord is not entitled
to get the enhanced rent. The petition schedule building is a 50 year old structure; but the landlord has not undertaken any repairing works. Thus, there is no basis for seeking enhanced rent.
3. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence - both oral and documentary. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked from the side of the landlord and R.W.1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B2(a) were marked from the part of the tenant. The Commission Report was marked as Ext.C1.
4. After considering the evidence, on record, the Rent Control Court fixed the rent at the rate of `12/per sq.ft. In appeal, the appellate Court also confirmed the said fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings whereby the courts below fixed the fair rent have come up in
_**R.C.R. No.187 of 2017**_ -: 4 :-
revision for consideration.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments contending that the landlord has not established his ownership over the petition schedule building as Ext.A1 Will was not proved, in accordance with law, and the landlord has not established the landlord - tenant relationship, beyond doubt. We have meticulously gone through the pleadings of both parties. We find that, in the counter, the tenant has not denied the landlord - tenant relationship. Even though the landlord - tenant relationship was not denied, with abundant caution, the landlord produced Ext.A1 Will and examined P.Ws.1 and 2, the attesting witnesses, to prove the execution of the Will and its use in evidence. The courts below have concurrently observed that during the course of examination, the genuineness of the Will was not challenged by the tenant. It has been admitted by the tenant that the
_**R.C.R. No.187 of 2017**_ -: 5 :-
original tenancy commenced in the year 1959 with one Joseph Chakola. It has further come out, in evidence, that the testator of Ext.A1 Will Sri. John P. Chackola is the son of Joseph Chackola, and he is known as Lonappan Chackola also. Thus, the name shown in Ext.B1 is the name of the landlord's husband only and he is none other than the testator of Ext.A1 Will. In Ext.A7 reply notice sent by the tenant to the landlord, in reply to Ext.A6 notice sent by the landlord himself admitted that the petitioner is his landlord. Therefore, the courts below are justified in finding that there is no bona fide in the denial of ownership of the building. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the tenant is not entitled to raise any challenge against the landlord - tenant relationship, in revision, and we reject the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
7. Coming to the fixation of fair rent, it is not disputed that the petition schedule building is having an area of 452 sq.ft. and now the tenant is paying `60/- only. Even though the tenancy has commenced
_**R.C.R. No.187 of 2017**_ -: 6 :-
in the year 1959, so far the rent was increased to `60/- from `20/- only. Therefore, fixation of fair rent was highly essential at any point of view.
8. Going by the impugned judgment, it is discernible that the petition schedule building is located in a commercially important area of the Cochin City, very near to College, Shipyard and other public institutions. Considering the development of the Cochin City, we find that the rent, which is being paid by the tenant, is a meager amount only and the rent requires to be enhanced, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court in _**Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheira [2009 (4) KLT 673 (SC)].**_ Ext.A5 satisfactorily proved that the place where the petition schedule building is situated is classified as “commercially important land” by the Government of Kerala. The fact that the market value of the property in that area has been increased manifold can never be doubted. Undoubtedly, the petition schedule building is situated in a fast developing
_**R.C.R. No.187 of 2017**_ -: 7 :-
area of Cochin City.
9. Going by the impugned judgment, it has come out, in evidence, through the Commission Report that the rent prevailing in that area is more than `10/- per sq.ft. Steep increase in the cost of living index and decrease in the purchasing power of money caused by the increased in the rate of inflation are universal phenomena, which does not require special proof. The rent claimed at the rate of `27.50 per sq.ft. may be the rent of a new building with all facilities. The petition schedule building is an old building constructed around 55 years back. Therefore, the said building cannot be compared with the other building which was rented out to `27.50 per sq.ft. However, considering the fact that the petition schedule building is an old one, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at the rate of `12/- per sq.ft. We are of the opinion that considering the potentiality of the location and the prevailing rent in the locality, brought out by Ext.C1 Commission Report, the rent fixed at the rate of `12/- per sq.ft. is
_**R.C.R. No.187 of 2017**_ -: 8 :-
just and reasonable, particularly in view of the general guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in _**Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheira [2009 (4)**_
_**KLT 673 (SC)].**_ We do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
This Rent Control Revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
_**(K.HARILAL, JUDGE)**_
**Sd/-** _**(P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE)**_
_**Nan/**_
_**//true copy//**_
## _**P.S. To Judge**_
_**manifold**_
