Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 142 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY -V, PALAKKAD DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 IN RENT CONTROL APPEAL NUMBER 29/2014 WHICH WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD DATED JUNE 27,2014 IN RENT CONTROL PETITION NUMBER 12/2013 REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: C.V. THAMBI S/O. VARETH,AGED 62 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, CHEERANS STATIONARY CENTRE, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD BY ADV SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: 1 S. SATHEESH S/O. G. SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, R.S.G NIVAS,MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD 678 012 BY ADVS. SMT.ANJANA MOHAN SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.C.V.MOHAN KUM.NAIR ANUJA GOPALAN SRI.E.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.A.SINDHULAKSHMY SMT.SANGEETHA SUNNY SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL R.RAJITHA(K/870/2005) CHITHRA S.BABU(K/376/2012) R.N.SANDEEP(K/000940/2013) STANDING COUNCEL SRI.SANTHOSH POTHUVAL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..143/2016, 144/2016, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 143 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-V, PALAKKAD DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 IN RENT CONTROL APPEAL NUMBER 30/2014 WHICH WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD DATED JUNE 27, 2014 IN RENT CONTROL PETITION NUMBER 13/2013.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: C.V.THAMBI S/O.VARETH,AGED 62 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,CHEERANS STATIONARY CENTRE, MARKET ROAD,PALAKKAD. BY ADV SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 S.GANESH S/O.G.SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 46 YEARS, R.S.G.NIVAS, MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD-678012. 2 C.PRASAD, S/O.S.CHANDRAN, 38 YEARS 'BHAVANI',DEVI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA,PALAKKAD-678012. BY ADVS. SMT.ANJANA MOHAN SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.C.V.MOHAN KUM.NAIR ANUJA GOPALAN SRI.E.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.A.SINDHULAKSHMY R.RAJITHA(K/870/2005) CHITHRA S.BABU(K/376/2012) R.N.SANDEEP(K/000940/2013) S.C SRI.SANTHOSH POTHUVAL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..142/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 144 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-V, PALAKKAD DATED JANUARY 19, 2016 IN RENT CONTROL APPEAL NUMBER 31/2014 WHICH WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD DATED JUNE 27, 2014 IN RENT CONTROL PETITION NUMBER 11/2013.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: C.V.THAMBI S/O. VARETH, AGED 62 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, CHEERANS STATIONARY CENTRE, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD BY ADV SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 S.GANESH S/O. G. SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 46 YEARS, R.S.G NIVAS, MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD 678 012 2 C. PRASAD S/O. S CHANDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS, 'BHAVANI', DEVI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD 678 012 BY ADVS. SMT.ANJANA MOHAN SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL No Advocate SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.C.V.MOHAN KUM.NAIR ANUJA GOPALAN
SRI.E.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.A.SINDHULAKSHMY SMT.SANGEETHA SUNNY R.RAJITHA(K/870/2005) CHITHRA S.BABU(K/376/2012) R.N.SANDEEP(K/000940/2013) S.C SRI.SANTHOSH POTHUVAL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..142/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2022
ORDER
C.S.Sudha, J.
These revision petitions under Section 20(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) have been filed by the appellant against the common judgment dated 19/01/2016 in R.C.A No.29/2014, Palakkad confirming the order dated 27/06/2014 of the Rent Control Court, Palakkad in R.C.P Nos.11/2013, 12/2013 and 13/2013 respectively. The respondents herein are the petitioners/landlords in the R.C.Ps and the respondents in the appeals. The parties in this revision will be referred to as described in the R.C.Ps. The petitioners/landlords in R.C.P.No.11/2013 and R.C.P.No.12/2013 is different.
2. The petitioners moved the Rent Control Court, Palakkad (RCC) for fixation of fair rent under Section 5 of the Act. The RCC by a common
order allowed the petitions in part. Aggrieved, the respondent-tenant filed the
aforesaid appeals. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA) by the impugned judgment confirmed the order of the RCC. Aggrieved, the respondent/tenant in the revision petition, alleges that the courts below, without properly appreciating the evidence, has allowed the petitions, which is incorrect and hence is liable to be set aside.
3. Heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian for the revision petitioner and Sri. Santhosh Pothuval the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The petitioners in the R.C.Ps claiming that the rent for the
tenanted premises is too low, sought for fixation of fair rent. According to them, the tenanted premises are situated in a very important commercial locality in the city. The rate of rent in R.C.P No. 11/2013 is ₹600/- per month. The petitioners claimed fixation of rent at the rate of ₹13,750/- per month, that is, at the rate of ₹25/- per sq. ft. for the tenanted premises having an extent of 551 sq ft. The respondent denied the claim of the petitioners and contended that the tenanted premises is an old and dilapidated building having an area of less than 300 sq ft. In R.C.P No.12/2013, the rate of monthly rent is ₹ 1400/-. The petitioners claimed rent at the rate of ₹ 12,500/- per month, that is, at the rate of ₹ 30/- per sq ft for the tenanted premises having an area of 420 sq ft. This again was disputed by the respondent/tenant, who contended that the tenanted premises has an area of less than 300 sq ft. In R.C.P No.13/2013, the rate of rent is ₹600/- per month. The petitioners claimed fixation at the rate of ₹13,750/- per month, that is, at the rate of ₹25 per sq ft for the tenanted premises having an area of 551 sq ft. The respondent denied this and contended that the tenanted premises has an area of less that 300 sq ft.
5. The R.C.Ps. were jointly tried. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1
was examined and Ext.C1 was marked. The respondent was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 was marked. The RCC after evaluating the evidence let in, has enhanced the rent in R.C.P No.11/2013 and 13/2013 from ₹600/- to ₹2100/- and in R.C.P. No.12/2013 from ₹1400/- to ₹5000/- per month.
6. This Court under Section 20 of the Act is not expected to re-appraise
the evidence adduced by the parties in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and the limited question that falls for its consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the court below is illegal, irregular or improper. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent-tenant that the petitioner has not discharged his duty of proving his case by examining the advocate commissioner who has filed Ext.C1 report and therefore, the court below went wrong in basing its findings on the basis of the said report. The petitioners do not have any objection to Ext.C1. If the respondent/tenant had any objection(s), he ought to have examined the advocate commissioner and established that the facts reported therein are incorrect or wrong. No such steps are seen taken by the respondent/tenant in the direction. It was on the basis of the materials contained in Ext.C1 Commission Report, the RCC had arrived at its conclusions or findings. We do not find any illegality warranting an interference by this Court. In the result, the Rent Control Revision petitions are found to be without any merit and hence dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE Jms/07.10