V.P. Mariyu v. Rakesh Raichura; P.K. Hashim v. Rakesh Raichura (RCRev Nos. 354, 356, 357, 358 of 2018, Kerala High Court)

## **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. 354 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2017 IN RCP NO.85 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,KOZHIKODE-I CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.36 OF 2018 DATED 16.07.2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** ## **V.P.MARIYU,** **AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.P.K. HASHIM, 19/1112, NELLIKKOT, P.V. SAMI ROAD, P.O.CHALAPPURAM, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, 673002 BY ADV SRINATH GIRISH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **RAKESH RAICHURA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.KANCHI VALLABHDAS, 9/456 G, P.K. BAZAAR, KOYASSAN KOYA ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673001 ADV.SANEESH KUMAR K ADV.V.B.SANTHINI** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..358/2018, 357/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.354 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 2 :- **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. 356 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2017 IN RCP NO.83 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-I CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.35 OF 2018 DATED 16.07.2917 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **P.K HASHIM, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O MOIDU HAJI, 19/1112, NELLIKKOT, P.V.SAMI ROAD, P.O.CHALAPPURAM, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673 002. BY ADV SRINATH GIRISH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** ## **RAKESH RAICHURA,** **AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.KANCHI VALLABHDAS, 9/456 G, P.K. BAZAAR, KOYASSAN KOYA ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673001** **ADV.SANEESH KUMAR K ADV.V.B.SANTHINI** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..354/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.354 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. 357 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2017 IN RCP NO.82 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-I CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.34 OF 2018 DATED 16.07.2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **V.P. MARIYU, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.P.K.HASHIM, 19/1112, NELLIKKOT, P.V.SAMI ROAD, CHALAPPURAM P.O, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKKODE TALUK - 673002. BY ADV SRINATH GIRISH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** ## **RAKESH RAICHURA,** **AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.KANCHI VALLABHDAS, 9/456 G, P.K. BAZAAR, KOYASSAN KOYA ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673001** **ADV.SANEESH KUMAR K ADV.V.B.SANTHINI** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..354/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.354 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 4 :- **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. 358 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2017 IN RCP NO.86 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-I CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCA NO.37 OF 2018 DATED 16.07.2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **V.P. MARIYU, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O P.K.HASHIM, 19/1112, NELLIKKOT, P.V.SAMI ROAD, P.O. CHALAPPURAM, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 002 BY ADV SRINATH GIRISH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** ## **RAKESH RAICHURA,** **AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.KANCHI VALLABHDAS, 9/456 G, P.K. BAZAAR, KOYASSAN KOYA ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673001** **ADV.SANEESH KUMAR K ADV.V.B.SANTHINI** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..354/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.Rev.Nos.354 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 5 :- ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **-----------------------------------------------** **R.C.Rev. Nos.354, 356, 357 and 358 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------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.82 of 2013, 83 of 2013, 85 of 2013 and 86 of 2013 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. They were proceedings under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) for fixation of fair rent in respect of four different rooms in a commercial complex occupied by a common tenant. The areas of the rooms are 163.6 sq.ft., 177 sq.ft., 808 sq.ft. and 189 sq.ft respectively and the tenant was paying rent for the rooms at the rate of Rs.850, Rs.1,250, Rs.1,850 and Rs.400 respectively. The Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,150, Rs.2,000, Rs.2,500 and Rs.750 respectively with 10% increase for every year. Though the landlord challenged the decision of the Rent Control Court in appeal, R.C.Rev.Nos.354 of 2018 and con. cases. -: 6 :- the Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court. It is against the concurrent decisions aforesaid of the authorities below that these revision petitions are preferred by the landlords. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the landlords as also learned counsel for the tenant. 3. The materials indicate that it is having regard to the criteria laid down by this Court in **Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria** , 2004 (1) KLT 767, that the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent for the subject rooms. It is seen that it was contended by the landlords in the appeal based on Exts.C1 to C4(a) reports that the tenants in similar premises in the locality are paying more rent than what is fixed by the Rent Control Court as fair rent. Similarly, it was contended by the landlords in the appeal that the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court is less than the fair rent earlier fixed in respect of an identical premises in the very same building. The Appellate Authority dealt with the said contentions elaborately and rejected the same. Paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority dealing with said contentions reads thus: “17. On an anxious consideration of the said submission ## R.C.Rev.Nos.354 of 2018 and con. cases. ## -: 7 :- and the materials on record, I am of the view that there is no merit in it. It is true that in Ext.C1 report, the commissioner has reported that for the room near to the petition schedule room in RCP.85/2013 bearing No.9/456(H), the rent paid is Rs.5,062/-, for room No.9/456(F), the rent paid is Rs.5,250/-, and for room No.9/456(B), the rent paid is Rs.5,000/-. It is also reported that room No.9/456(F) is having 264sq.ft., and room No.9/456(B) is having 285sq.ft. But it is very pertinent to note that the above findings have been recorded by the commissioner on the basis of hearsay information, provided by the alleged occupiers of the rooms. The commissioner has not physically inspected any of the rooms in order to verify the identical features, area, and amenities of those rooms. Similar is the fact with regard to Exts.C2 to C4 reports also. Even though in these reports, the commissioner has mentioned about the rents paid by other shop owners, all of them are based on hearsay information provided to the commissioner. The petitioners have not examined any of the shop owners occupying the nearby rooms to prove the above facts. If that be so, no much reliance can be placed upon Exts.C1 to C4 reports to ascertain the similarity of the rooms and the rent paid to those rooms. It is true that as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, Ext.A10 receipt-book shows payment of rent at the rate of Rs.6,000/- by one Anaz for room No.9/456(F). But as stated earlier, in the absence of evidence to prove the identical features, amenities and the area of the room thus occupied by Anaz, the same cannot be relied upon to fix the fair rent of the petition schedule premises. Similarly, Ext.A9 also cannot be relied upon to ascertain the fair rent of the petition schedule premises since, ## R.C.Rev.Nos.354 of 2018 and con. cases. ## -: 8 :- there is no evidence to prove the identical features and amenities available in that room. Therefore, on an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the view that there is no material available before this Authority to fix the fair rent at the rate sought for by the petitioners. This in turn means that there is no ground to disturb the finding of the Rent Control Court in fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule premises. Ergo, I find that these appeals lack merits and the same are only to be dismissed. The points are answered accordingly.” The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the contention based on the order passed in an earlier proceedings for fixation of fair rent. It is seen that in terms of Ext.A9 order passed on 29.07.2016 in respect of another premises having an area of 455 sq.ft. in the very same building, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at Rs.2,000/- per month. It appears that the fair rent fixed in the said case works out to be slightly above Rs.4/- per sq.ft., whereas the fair rent fixed in the instant proceedings would work out to be only Rs.3/- per sq.ft. and Rs.4/- per sq.ft. in respect of two premises. We do not think that the said order has any relevance in this case in the absence of any material to show that the present premises are better placed than the premises covered by Ext.A9 order. That apart, the findings rendered by the authorities below as to the fair rent R.C.Rev.Nos.354 of 2018 and con. cases. **==> picture [27 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** payable in respect of the premises involved in the matter are purely questions of fact, and this Court exercising power under Section 20 of the Act cannot reappraise the evidence on record to examine the correctness of the same, unless the same is perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, would result in gross miscarriage of justice [See **Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh** , (2014) 9 SCC 78]. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the revision petitions and are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** Sd/- ## **C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** YKB