Chamakunnummal Mullakoya Thangal vs Chalil Aboobacker

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner is the tenant in respect of a building near Vatakara town. The tenancy came into existence in the year 1995. Rent was fixed at 200/- per month. Rent was increased thereafter. The landlord filed R.C.P. No. 99/2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara for fixing fair rent at 1,000/- per month. The Rent Control Court fixed fair rent at 850/- per month with yearly increase at 10%. The tenant filed appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Additional District Court, Vatakara as R.C.A. No. 59/2012. The Appellate Authority held that fixation of fair rent at 850/- per month was just and proper. However, the yearly increase of rent was reduced from 10% to 8%. The tenant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court.

The building is situated just 2 Kilometers away from Vatakara Railway Station. The Commissioner reported that the building is situated in a commercial area. Rent was fixed at the time of entrustment at 200 in the year 1995. The Rent Control Court considered the facts in detail and held as follows:

"...........The commissioner has reported about the rate of rent in respect of Room No. 14/200 and 14/201. It was also reported that these rooms are larger than the plaint schedule room. In the circumstance, the rate of rent reported by the commissioner in respect of these rooms cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the fair rent of the plaint schedule room. At the same time, it is most important to note that the petitioner has claimed in the petition itself that the rate of rent prevailing in the locality for a similar room will not be less than 1,000/- per month and as said above, there is no specific denial of the said statement. Likewise the claim in the petition regarding the fall in money value also has not been disputed. In such circumstance, this court is of the opinion that considering the money value being on decline, increase in the value of land, inflation, the fact that the building is in a commercially developed area and there being no considerable damage to the building, an increase in the rate of rent at a reasonable rate can be granted. If an increase at the rate of 10% is granted per year from the date of entrustment, the room would fetch an amount of Rs. 835.51 after 15 years, i.e., in the year 2010. Considering the claim of the petitioner regarding the prevailing rate of rent in the locality which is not challenged as said above, this court is of the opinion that the above calculation can be taken as the criteria for fixing the fair rent. Therefore, it is found that the fair rent of the petition schedule room can be fixed at Rs. 850/-(rounding the figure 835.51) as on the date of petition."

The tenant raised a contention that the electricity was disconnected and thus the amenities were cut by the landlord. He applied before the Accommodation Controller and an order was passed for restoring the amenities. The landlord contended that the electricity was disconnected not by him, but by the Kerala State Electricity Board for non-payment of electricity charges by the tenant. The tenant contended that for all the rooms in the building, there is a common electric meter and it is under lock and key of the landlord. He stated that non-payment of electricity charges was not due to his fault. The courts below held that this issue need not deter the Rent Control Court from fixing fair rent. If the petitioner has availed a remedy before the Accommodation Controller as per the provisions of the Rent Control Act, it is upto him to pursue that remedy in accordance with law. The fixation of rent as 850/- per month with yearly increase of rent at 8% was just and reasonable.

In Sreekumaran Nair Vs. Ponnuswami Chettiyar, a Division Bench of this Court held that the authorities under the Rent Control Act have the power not only to fix fair rent, but also to allow reasonable modifications to the rate so fixed at reasonable intervals by the order fixing fair rent itself.

The authorities below arrived at the findings based on the pleadings and facts proved in the case. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order and judgment of the authorities below warranting interference under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Revision is accordingly dismissed.