BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT KOTTAYAM
R.C. O.P. NO /2 010
Petitioner
M. O, Mani
Counter Petitioner
Jose Philip
Name and address of petitioner
M. O. Mani aged 74, residing at Thannickal House, Pakkil P.O. Kottayam.
Name and address of the counter petitioner .
Jose Philip aged, 65, J & P Paint House, KMC/799/IX, Thannickal Buidings, Thirunakkara, Kottayam, residing at Kavumgumkattil House, Kidangoor South P.O. Kottayam.
1. The above named petitioner respectfully submits as follows.
2. Petition is filed under section 5 (1) of Act II of 1965 The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 for fixation of fair rent for the schedule building occupied by the counter petitioner as the tenant thereof.
3. The building was originally let to the father of the counter petitioner by the petitioner. On the death of the original tenant, the counter petitioner attorned to the petitioner and remained as the sole tenant thereof with the consent and knowledge of other heirs of the original tenant. The counter petitioner alone is paying rent to the petitioner and counter petitioner alone is in occupation and possession of the building and he is the tenant of the schedule building.
4. The rent paid now is only a meager amount and the said rent is not paid from 26/12/1978 onwards.
5. The cost of living and price of all articles and value of properties have got increased to a very great extent. So it is just and necessary to fix the fair rent of the schedule building.
6. The room is having an area of 600 sq ft. The building is on the ground floor. The cost of construction of the building now in the occupation of the tenant will be not less than Rs. 7,20,000/- excluding value of land.
7. A fair return on such investment in the circumstances has to be ensured.
8. The building is a concrete structure having two shuttered entrance, one to the west and one to north and another door with wooden door panel and having three phase electric connection and attached latrine facility.
9. The tenant is paying only Rs. 1500/- per month which comes to Rs. 50 per day which is a paltry sum rent is to be increased to make it in parity with rent of similar building with similar amenities in the locality.
10. The present rate of rent of similar accommodation in the Kottayam Municipal area is Rs.25 per square feet.
11. The Kottayam Municipality is assessing annual building tax of the building as per the new norms formulated by the local self government and it comes to Rs. 3570/-.
12. The schedule building is situated in the centre of Kottayam Town in a very commercially busy and important area. The present rate of rent of similar accommodation in the Kottayam Municipal Area is at the rate of Rs. 25 to 45 per square feet at the ground floor. The schedule building is within 150 meters from Kottayam Municipal Office, Kottayam Private Bus Terminal, Centtral Junction, Mahathma Gandhi Square, Kottayam Y.M.C.A. , Hospital etc. which are all places of public importance.
13. The building is used for commercial purpose of selling painting materials which is a very lucrative business due to location of the building and its commercial importance.
14. The Municipal building tax was Rs.1624/- At the time of letting and it has shoot up to Rs.3570
15. Thus if the rent is calculated at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq.ft. for 600 sq. feet the rent per month will amount to Rs. 15,000/-
16. The rent at the time of letting has become a paltry sum due to inflation and consequential devaluation of money. The money value decreased and price increased several times during these thirty two years.
17. The scheduled building is situated in a very commercially important part of Kottayam town on the ground floor.
18. Considering all the above facts and the cost of living index and increase in construction cost and increase in price of all articles, it is only just and proper to fix the fair rent of the building scheduled here under at Rs.25/- per square feet of the plinth area of the building which is not less than 600 square feet.
19. The court may pass an order to fix the fair rent from Rs. 1500/- To Rs.15,000/- Considering the increase in Municipal tax, decrease in the money value, and increase in the importance of the place during the last thirty two years.
20. In spite of repeated request the counter petitioner refuse to pay a fair rent. Hence this petition. The cause of action has arisen from 1.12.2009 at Muttambalam Village which is within the jurisdiction of this court.
On the above facts it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to fix the rent of the building at Rs. 25/- per square feet and direct the tenant to pay the rent accordingly at Rs.15,000/- per month, and further grant such incidental and consequential reliefs also.
Schedule of building
District Thaluk Village Municipality Municipal No. Sy No Description North East South West
Kottayam Kottayam Muttambalam Kottayam 799 of ward IX 12 in block No 55 One room having 42 feet long from north to south & 21 feet broad from east to west and have 600 sq. ft. area in building numbered 799/IX of Kottayam Municipality. Private Passage Private pathway Petitioners’ building Private pathway
Petitioner- M. O. Mani
Advocate for the petitioner : Sajan A. Varghese
All what is stated above is true to my direct knowledge and I affirm and declare them to be true and correct.
Dated this the th Day of September 2010 at Kottayam
Petitioner:- M. O. Mani
Rented Building Owners Association Kerala 
The court had allowed Rs15000/- per month as rent in this petition. Any building owner who feels that he is receiving rent lower than he is entitled to receive, may file similar petition to get a reasonable return of his investment.
LikeLike
If every building owner file petition like this and get a reasonable rent for their building, the problem with the rent control will surely diminish and relation between tenants and building owners will become more smooth
LikeLike
This will be very useful for the building owners who are struggling for the last few decades.
LikeLike
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/21ST POUSHA 1934
RCRev..No. 17 of 2013 ()
————————
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/10/10 IN RCA.49/2010 OF I ADDL. RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR CONFIRMING THE ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED 04-03-2003 IN OS.3082/2000 OF THE II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
—————————————————————-
K.J.PAULSON
AGED 53 YEARS,S/O. KAIPARAMBAN OUSEPH
CHALISSERY BUILDING, KIZHAKKE ANGADI, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
SRI.K.I.SAGEER
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:
—————————————————-
1. MANI(DIED),AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.CHALISSERY PYLOTH,
CHELAKKOTTUKARA DESOM,CHIYYARAM VILLAGE
THRISSU5R – 680 026.
2. KUNJILAKUTTY
D/O. LATE CHALISSERY MANI,CHELAKKOTTUKARA DESOM,
CHIYYARAM VILLAGE,THRISSU5R – 680 026.
3. ETHAMMA, -DO-, -DO-
4. PAUL, S/O.LATE CHALISSERY MANI, CHELAKKOTTUKARA DESOM
CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSU5R – 680 026.
5. MERINA
D/O. LATE CHALISERY MANI, -DO-, -DO-.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
& A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
…………………………………………………………..
R.C.R. No.17 of 2013
…………………………………………………………..
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2013.
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
This revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is
against the judgment, by which the rent control appellate
authority affirmed the decision of the Munsiff court on an
application for fixation of fair rent, which at that time had to
be filed as regular suit. The tenanted premises is in an
exceptionally prominent area of Thrissur District, namely
Swaraj Round. The rent deed of 1993 shows that the rate of
rent at that time was `450/- per month. After adverting to the
material evidence, the trial court fixed the fair rent at `1,500/-
per month. The appellate authority, after considering the
materials on record and applying the relevant legal yardstick,
affirmed the decision of the Munsiff Court. We find no
infirmity, which could be treated as giving rise to any ground
RCR 17/13
-2-
for interference under Section 20 of the Act. We see no
illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned decision.
The revision petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed
in limine.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
(A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE)
jg
LikeLike
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/21ST CHAITHRA 1935
R.C.Rev.No.140 of 2013 ()
————————–
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA.NO.115/2011 OF II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 29-10-2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP.105/2010 OF III
ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL)
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN RCP :
—————————————————————————————–
T.K.CHANDY, AGED 80 YEARS,
S/O. P.K.ABRAHAM, CC DOOR NO.37/3470,
PONOTH SHOPPING COMPLEX, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL),
SRI.P.R.MILTON.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCP:
—————————————————————————————–
O.K.JAYADEVI, AGED 90 YEARS.
W/O. LATE P.K.SREEDHARAN, PONOTH SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KALOOR, KOCHI-17.
BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (CAVEATOR).
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-04-2013,
ALONG WITH R.C.R.NOS.157 & 158 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R. Nos.140, 157 & 158 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2013
ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.
All these revision petitions have been filed by the tenant of a building
aggrieved by the order of eviction as well as the fixation of fair rent. Among
these revision petitions, R.C.R No.140 of 2013 is mainly concerned with the
order of eviction and other two revision petitions namely, R.C.R.Nos.157 and
158 of 2013 are concerned with the fixation of rent.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.George
Varghese and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri.Lakshmi
Narayanan.
3. The R.C.P was preferred by the respondent under Sections 11(3)
and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and
the Rent Control Court allowed eviction on both the grounds. In the appeal,
the said findings have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority also.
4. We find from the narration of the facts that the bona fide need put
forward is for the purpose of starting a business of stationary and gift articles
for the son of the landlady Sri.P.S.Suresh Babu. It was also submitted that
RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13. 2
his son Sri.Brijith Babu will also join in the said business, as he is not having
permanent source of income.
5. On the evidence adduced by the landlady by way of examination of
Sri.Suresh Babu as PW1, after analysing the reports of the Commissioner
produced as Ext.C1 and on a discussion of the evidence adduced by the tenant
the courts found that the bona fide need pleaded is genuine.
6. In a matter like this where the dependent son’s need is projected,
the courts will have to find out whether the need alleged is genuine or not and
in the light of the evidence of PW1, it was found in favour of the landlady.
7. The petition schedule building consists of two rooms in the ground
floor of ‘Ponoth Shopping complex’ at Kaloor, facing Aluva-Ernakulam Main
Road, having an area of 600 sq. feet. One of the aspects pointed out by the
tenant was that the son is not depending on the landlady. It was also
contended that he is getting `16,000/- as his share of rent for the first floor of
the building. But, it was found in the appeal that there was no challenge with
regard to the finding that the landlady and her son have no building in their
possession. The court, therefore, found that the dependency provided is not
financial dependency and the question that should be considered is whether
the family members are dependent on the landlady for the building.
Accordingly, the plea was accepted by both the courts.
RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13. 3
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.George Varghese submitted
that after the appeal was disposed of, Sri.Suresh Babu expired and therefore,
in the light of the said subsequent event, the need projected does not subsist.
9. It is explained by the learned counsel for the respondent that the
need projected is that of the dependent son along with the son of the now
deceased son and, therefore, the death of the son namely PW1 will not have
any impact. We have perused the details of the averments also. As we have
already noted the fact that the son was dependent on the mother was proved
in evidence, the business proposed to be done was with the participation of
the grandson also. It is also pleaded that it is for the income of the family that
the need is projected. In the light of the above, we cannot agree with the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent event
totally eclipses the need projected under Section 11(3). Therefore the said
contention also cannot help the petitioner.
10. With regard to the finding under Section 11(4)(iii), it can be seen
that the plea was that the tenant has acquired two rooms in Jawaharlal Nehru
International Stadium, Kaloor. The respondent admitted that he acquired two
rooms and they are being used as a godown. The same has been proved in
evidence also. It has two shuttered rooms having an area of 450 sq. feet, as
noted by the Advocate Commissioner. It is situated half kilometre away from
RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13. 4
the main road, but within the premises of the Stadium. We find that the Rent
Control Court considered the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who gave
evidence that vehicles can be parked in the area. She also noticed a service
centre of ‘Honda Activa’ near the building. She also noticed other vehicles
parked in the road surrounding the stadium. Accordingly, it was found that the
alleged inconvenience due to insufficiency of parking space itself is not
sufficient to reject the claim of the landlady under the section. The said view
was confirmed by the Appellate Authority also.
11. We are of the view that the finding on the said issue is based on the
evidence and it does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, on both grounds landlady is entitled to
succeed. Accordingly, we dismiss R.C.R.No.140 of 2013.
12. In R.C.R Nos.157 and 158 of 2013, the issue projected is regarding
the fixation of fair rent for the building. The Rent Control Court has fixed the
rent at `33/- per sq. feet. This has been enhanced by the Appellate Authority
to `40/-per sq. feet.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an
increase by 105% when the percentage is reckoned. The learned counsel for
the respondent submitted that the assessment cannot be said to be
unreasonable in the light of the importance of the locality, amenities and
RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13. 5
other factors. The building is situated at Kaloor, one of the important places
in the city. It is a place having commercial importance also.
14. After having heard the parties, we feel that the amount can be fixed
at a lump sum of `20,000/- per month, which will satisfy the requirement of
both sides. Accordingly, we modify the orders passed by the Rent Control
Court and by the Appellate Authority in R.C.P.No.115 of 2011, 145 of 2011
and 152 of 2011.
15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an
amount of `50,000/- has been deposited during the pendency of the appeal.
The same will be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. It is also submitted that
the an amount of `80,000/- has been give an security deposit which according
to the learned counsel for the petitioner will have also has to be adjusted. As
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the same will be
returned to the petitioner at the time of vacating the building.
In the result, we dispose of these revision petitions as under:
1. R.C.R.No.140 of 2013 is dismissed.
2. R.C.R.Nos.157 & 158 of 2013 are disposed of fixing the monthly
rent at `20,000/- in modification of the orders of the authorities
below with effect from 1.7.2010.
RCRs.140, 157 & 158/13. 6
3. The entire arrears of rent as on today will be deposited within a
period of two months from today and the receipt thereof shall be
produced before the Rent Control Court or the Execution court as
the case may be, without fail;.
4. The revision petitioner will file an affidavit on or before 25.5.2013
before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case
may be, undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the petition
schedule building peacefully to the landlady on or before
31.12.2013 and he will continue to pay occupational charges at the
rent at the rate of `20,000/- till the date of actual surrender of the
building to the landlady.
We make it clear that the tenant will get the benefit of time
granted as above, only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the
undertakings contained therein.
sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
JUDGE
krj
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
LikeLike
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/10TH PHALGUNA 1934
OP (RC).No. 277 of 2013 (O)
—————————
RCP.48/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT KOZHIKODE-I
PETITIONER(S) :
———————
B.P.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
KOZHIKODE, PROPRIETOR, SARATHI AUTOMOBILES,
KP 10/475 KAKKODIMUKKU, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ
RESPONDENT(S) :
————————
RATNAVALLY, AGED 41 YEARS
D/O. APPUKUTTY NAIR, W/O. VIJAYAN,
CHITTADIPOYIL HOUSE, ERAVANNOOR AMSOM AND DESOM
KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN-673001.
R BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 01-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
BP
OP (RC).No. 277 of 2013 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN RCR NO. 241/12
EXT.P2 COPY OF ORDER IN E.A. NO. 344/12 BY THE MUNSIFF COURT-I,
KOZHIKODE IN E.P. NO. 29/11 IN RCP NO. 48/2008.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT GRANTING TIME
TILL 30-6-13
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O.P.(R.C.).No.277/2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This petition is filed at the instance of the
tenant aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the
Principal Munsiff’s Court, Kozhikode in an execution
application. It was found by the learned Munsiff that
fair rent had to be paid by the tenant at the rate of
`.10,000/- from the date of rent control petition,
i.e., 22/09/2010. The tenant contended that the tenant
need to pay fair rent only from 29/09/2011 and the said
contention was rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel appearing for respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the operative portion of Ext.P1 Judgment rendered
by this Court in R.C.R.No.241/12 will show that the
deposit of rent at the enhanced rate need be only from
the date of fixing fair rent and, therefore, as the
same has been complied with, the view taken by the
learned Munsiff cannot be supported.
O.P.(R.C.).No.277/2013
-:2:-
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the learned Rent Controller had fixed fair rent at
the rate of `.10,000/- from the date of rent control
petition i.e. 22/09/2010 and the said order has become
final and, therefore, the liability of the tenant is to
deposit the fair rent at the rate of `.10,000/- from
the said date and hence, the view taken by the learned
Munsiff cannot be assailed at all.
5. It is clear from Ext.P3 order passed by the
Apex Court in SLP Nos.21219-21222/2012 that time to
vacate the premises is granted till 30/06/2013 subject
to filing of usual undertaking.
6. We are of the view that in the light of the
fact that the order of the rent control court fixing
the fair rent at `.10,000/- is from the date of filing
of the rent control petition i.e. 22/09/2010, the
learned Munsiff is perfectly justified in passing the
Ext.P2 order. The arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, by relying upon condition No.2 in
Ext.P1 Judgment cannot survive. What is meant by this
Court evidently is that the rent has to be deposited at
O.P.(R.C.).No.277/2013
-:3:-
`.10,000/- per mensum in terms of the order passed by
the rent control court and, therefore, we find no
reason to interfere with the order. The original
petition is dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner then
prayed for a week’s time to deposit the amount, which
is deficient. We find that in the Judgment Ext.P1,
this Court had made it clear that the petitioner will
get the benefit of the directions of para.10 only if he
files an affidavit in time and the undertakings
contained therein are honoured. In fact, if any of
the conditions are violated then the petitioner will
not definitely get the benefit of the said order. We
cannot, while sitting in this jurisdiction modify the
terms of the said Judgment by extending the time.
Therefore, the said prayer is rejected.
Sd/-
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
Sd/-
(A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, Judge.)
ms
LikeLike
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/22ND PHALGUNA 1934
RCRev..No. 233 of 2012 ()
————————–
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA.137/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VATAKARA
DATED 05-11-2011
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP.8/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, VATAKARA
DATED 31-08-2010
————-
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
——————————————
NANU, S/O.KANARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, VAYAL PEEDIKAYIL
THAZHE KUNIYIL VEEDU
ERAMALA AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
——————————–
ANTHRU HAJI, AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.AMMAD, MEETHALE PEEDIKAYIL SWASTHAM
RESIDING AT KOTTAYIL ERAMALA AMSOM, ORKKATTERI DESOM
VATAKARA TALUK, PIN-673 101.
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN
BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R No.233 of 2012
&
C.O. No.74 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2013
ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant aggrieved by the
judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, fixing the monthly
rent and the arrear at `1,125/-, with effect from the date of petition viz.,
15.1.2010. In the cross objection, the landlord claimed an amount of `1,500/-.
2. The application was filed by the landlord claiming monthly rent of
`1,500/-. The necessary pleas will show that the room was given on rent to
the petitioner in the year 1993, exactly on 5.5.93, for a monthly rent of `300/-.
It was enhanced to `430/- per month, since 2003.b Rent was paid upto
31.12.2003 and thereafter, the same has been kept in arrears.
3. It is also pleaded that the locality is an important area and the room
forms the ground floor abutting the road. The landlord also pleaded that since
money value has gone down, a reasonable amount will have to be paid by the
tenant and accordingly, he claimed monthly rent at the rate of `1,500/-.
4. Objections were filed by the tenant opposing the claims.
RCR.233/12&CO74/12 2
5. Both parties adduced evidence. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to
A14 were marked on the side of the petitioner. RWs.1 to 3 were examined
and Exts.X1 and X2 were marked on the side of the respondent. A commission
was taken out and the report and sketch have been marked on consent as
Exts.C1 and C2.
6. After considering the various aspects, the Rent Control Court fixed
the amount as `750/- per month from the date of the petition. The learned
Appellate Authority modified the same by fixing the amount as noted above.
7. We heard both sides.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons, in
support of the application, as adverted to by the Rent Control Court and the
learned Appellate Authority, are not correct. It is submitted that, even going
by the evidence, the room is not in an important locality. It is away from the
main road and the area is not commercially important. It is also submitted
that if the evidence is evaluated, it can be seen that even in respect of the
buildings owned by the landlord, so much rent has not been claimed or fixed.
It is also submitted that the learned Appellate Authority has relied on certain
documents which have been rejected by the Rent Control Court, which is not
justified.
RCR.233/12&CO74/12 3
9. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the report of the
Commissioner will show that the area is a commercially important one with a
number of establishments. It is submitted that from the Orkkattery-
Nadapuram main road another road branches and the location of the building
is only 40 metres away from the said main road. It is submitted that the
tenant could not adduce sufficient evidence as against the evidence adduced
by the landlord. It is also submitted that even going by the findings rendered
by the learned Appellate Authority, it was only be reasonable to fix the amount
at `1,500/-.
10. We have perused the impugned judgment and the order passed by
the Rent Control Court.
11. Before the Rent Control Court Exts.A13 and A14 have been
produced, which are certified copies of the judgments in two cases, to prove
the fair rent fixed at `1,000/-, in respect of the rooms involved therein. But,
only because of the fact that the Commissioner could not inspect the rooms
which remained closed as on the date of inspection, he could not report about
the features of the rooms. After adverting into the contentions of both sides,
even though it was found that the petitioner is entitled to an order fixing fair
rent, the amount was arrived at `750 per month by the Rent Control Court.
But, no comparison has been made to the rate of rent prevailing in the locality
RCR.233/12&CO74/12 4
on the basis of the evidence adduced by the landlord.
12. The learned Appellate Authority in paragraphs (10) and (11)
considered the matter in detail. It was come out in evidence that the shop is
electrified and it was part of a two storied concrete building about 40 metres
away from Orkkattery-Nadapuram main road. The tenant is running a
vegetable shop therein. The room is electrified and the floor of the room was
plastered with cement and iron rolling shutters are there.
13. After referring to the details in the report of the Commissioner, it
was noticed that the room bearing No.XV/611 and another three rooms are
having monthly rent of `850/-. The details of different rooms adjacent to the
buildings have been mentioned in paragraphs (10) and (11) of the impugned
judgment.
14. After considering the oral evidence as well as the evidence relating
to certain adjoining rooms, it was found that the landlord is entitled for more
enhanced rent. We notice that Ext.A8 relates to the room, let out on a
monthly rent of `1,400/- which is opposite to the petition schedule room, in
the year 2003 and the present rent for that room is `1,800/-. Another room
opposite to the premises of the landlord occupied by one Rasheed and
Muhammed fetches `1,500/- as rent with a stipulation to enhance the rent by
10% once in three years. The document is Ext.A9 of the year 2009. Ext.A10 is
RCR.233/12&CO74/12 5
in respect of another room where the rent is `4,000/-, entrusted in 2009.
Similarly, Exts.A11 and A12 also shows the rate of rent at `2,000/- and
`5,500/- with stipulation for enhancement of rent by 10% annually.
15. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
Ext.A10 relates to another tenant of the room in Orkkatteri town, as the
details of the rooms are not shown in evidence, we find that Exts.A5, A6, A7,
A8 and A9 will give a clear idea regarding the rent prevailing in the locality
and the upward trend. In the recent documents Ext.A9 & A10, the
enhancement provided in 10% for the three years. The learned Appellate
Authority has fixed the rent by relying on Exts.A5 to A7, which relate to
rooms in the same building. But, they are of the years 2001 & 2002. But, we
are of the view that there is no reason to reject Exts.A8 and A9, which are
opposite to the petition schedule room. The R.C.P is filed in the year 2010.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenant is
conducting only a business in vegetable items and, therefore, it is not an
established business. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the
landlord. We are of the view that an examination of the monthly rent reflected
in the documents will prove the steady increase in rent, in and nearby the
petition schedule room, which is a relevant criteria. it is settled law by the
decisions of this Court that prevailing rent, in respect of similar
RCR.233/12&CO74/12 6
accommodation, is a relevant criteria. Inflation and resultant reduction in the
purchasing power of money are also relevant factors. Therefore, the claim
cannot be said to be unreasonable to any extent.
17. We have found on a reading of the report of the Commissioner that
the Commissioner is of the view that it is a commercially important locality
with so many business establishments, banking institution, mosque, temple,
school, post office and other establishments are situated. We do not find any
reason to reject the said report of the Commissioner. The landlord is thus
entitled for an enhancement, as sought for. Therefore, we are of the view that
`1,500/- in the year 2010 will be the fair rent that can be fixed.
We dismiss the Revision Petition and allow the Cross Objection. No
costs.
sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
JUDGE
krj
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
LikeLike
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/6TH CHAITHRA 1935
RCRev.No.383 of 2012 (C)
———————————
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-06-2012 IN RCA.NO.67/2011 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-03-2011 IN RCP.85/2007 OF III
ADDL.M.C. (RENT CONTROL), ERNAKULAM.)
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT:
——————————————————–
C.K.MATHEW, AGED 58,
S/O.KUNJUVARKEY, CHERUPILLIL HOUSE,
S.N.JUNCTION, THRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE,
KANAYANNOOR TALUK, PROPRIETOR ‘ARISTO BEAUTY CENTRE’
DOOR NO.XIV/18, S.N.JUNCTION, THRIPUNITHURA.
NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK – 682 301.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.MOHANAN,
SRI.K.M.SANAL.
RESPONDENT(S):
—————————-
1. C.K.SAJEEV, AGED ABOUT 48,
S/O.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, CHETTUPARAMBILHOUSE,
S.N.JUNCTION, NADAMA VILLAGE
KANAYANNOOR TALUK 682 301.
2. MALLIKA KARUNAKARAN ALIAS RATNAVALLY, AGED ABOUT 77,
W/O.LATE C.K.KARUNAKARAN, CHETTUPARAMBIL HOUSE
S.N.JUNCTION, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK682 301.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE,
ADV. SRI.K.VINODKUMAR.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-03-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
—————————————–
RCR No.383 of 2012
—————————————-
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2013
ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The revision petition has emanated from a proceeding for
fixing fair rent initiated by the landlord, who is the respondent
herein. The tenant is the revision petitioner.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri.K.R.Mohanan and Sri.Abraham P.George appearing for
respondents 1 and 2. Sri.Mohanan submitted that it is a case
where a pure guess work has been attempted by the two
authorities and the enhancement is exorbitant also. According to
him, the prevailing rent is not reflected in the fixation. Further,
periodical revision has also been allowed at the rate of 15% for
two years after fixing the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/-
from 19.1.2005.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Abraham
P.George submitted that there is a permitted method of fixing
the amount after analysing the various factors including the
RCR No.383 of 2012 2
importance of the locality, including developments and other
economic factors.
4. We have perused the orders passed by the Rent Control
Court as well as the Appellate Authority. The building was taken
on rent decades back from the father of the respondent. As on
the date of filing of the application, the monthly rent payable by
the tenant was Rs.1,000/-.
5. The evidence adduced includes the deposition of PW1
and Exts.A1 to A4 on the side of the petitioner. RW1 was
examined on the side of the respondent and Ext.B1 also has been
marked.
6. The discussion made by the Rent Control Court is evident
in paragraphs 8 and 9. The building is situated at the
S.N.Junction, Thripunithura. The important buildings in the
locality and other establishments have been mentioned in the
evidence of PW1 to bring out the fact that the building is
situated in a commercially important locality. In Cross
Examination, RW1 also admitted that this is a commercially
important locality. From the admissions of RW1, an indication
regarding the income returned from the business is also
mentioned in paragraph-8 of the order passed by the Rent
RCR No.383 of 2012 3
Control Court, which was found to be substantial. It was also
found that the tenant has admitted that Convent School,
Vijayakumara Menon Hospital, Varma Hospital, Varkeys
Supermarket, schools etc. are also situated within the radius of
100-150 metres. Mention is also made about the Choice Building
which is stated to be the highest building complex in the South
Asia which is about 200 metres away from the petition schedule
building. The facilities in the schedule building are mentioned in
paragraph-9. It is having an electricity connection and the area
is roughly between 400 to 450 sq.ft. There is a varandha also
which measures at 8 metres in length and 70 c.m. width.
7. The learned counsel Sri.K.R.Mohanan submitted that
there is no parking facility on the side of the road and separate
toilet facilities are also not there. It is explained by the learned
counsel for the landlord that the building was constructed
sometime back and common facilities are being provided by the
landlord. We are not going into the said issue since the Rent
Control Court has fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per
month which stand confirmed by the Appellate Authority after
considering relevant aspects. Of course, going by the decisions
of this Court, various guidelines have been laid down for fixing
RCR No.383 of 2012 4
the fair rent which includes the importance of the locality and
other relevant aspects like inflation.
8. We find that both the authorities have analysed the
evidence adduced by the parties in arriving at the conclusions.
Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the relevant materials have not been brought into evidence,
we find that Section 5(1) alone is statutorily remaining for fixing
fair rent in the light of the decisions of this Court. The Court will
have to enter into a discussion on the materials relied upon by
either side to render a just decision. In that view of the matter,
it cannot be said that the exercise done by the Rent Control
Court as confirmed by the Appellate Authority is so erroneous.
The finding rendered will show that the amount of rent fixed at
Rs.3,000/- per month. It will be around Rs.7.50 per sq.ft. It
cannot be said to be on a larger scale. Therefore, we confirm the
same.
9. With regard to the periodical enhancement, Sri.Mohanan
vehemently contended that such an exercise could not have been
attempted by the Court in the absence of a prayer by the
landlord. We find from the order passed by the Rent Control
Court that the monthly rent is fixed at Rs.3,000/- with effect from
RCR No.383 of 2012 5
19.1.2005 with a provision for enhancement of the rate of rent at
15% in every two years. To avoid future disputes, obviously,
such a method was adopted by the Rent Control Court. We find
no reason to interfere with the method adopted by that Court.
But, we are of the view that instead of enhancement at every two
years, it can be modified to every three years. Therefore, the
revision petition is dismissed subject to the above modification.
Parties will bear their costs.
sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
LikeLike