Koyakutty vs Kainikkara Abdurahiman And Ors

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

The tenant in a petition filed for fixation of fair rent is the revision petitioner. He challenges the fair rent fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month for the

tenanted building. The tenant is a Chartered Accountant and running his office in the tenanted premises.

R.C.P No.25 of 2015 before the Rent Control Court, Tirur was preferred by the landlord alleging that the tenant is paying only a rent of Rs.250/-

per month, while the fair rent in the locality, for the building of the nature and type let out to the tenants, would be an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month.

Since the building is situated in a commercially important area within the heart of the Tirur town.

The respondents objected to the claim for fixation of fair rent and stated that the scheduled building on partition in their family, was set apart to the

share of the 5th respondent and thereafter he has been remitting the rent. He further contended that the tenant had no other income other than the

tapioca and vegetable business being conducted in the scheduled room, which has only an area of less than 150 sq.ft. Though he agreed to pay the fair

rent, it was pointed out that Rs.6,000/- claimed by the landlord was too exorbitant.

PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Ext.A1 marked on behalf of landlord. Tenant examined himself as RW1. Exts.C1 and C2 were marked as court

exhibits, while Exts.X1 to X3 series were marked as third party exhibits.

After analysing the evidence adduced in the case and taking note of the fact that the rent presently being paid by the tenant was the amount fixed

25 years ago, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at Rs.6,000/- per month taking note of the principles laid down in Edger ferus Vs. Abraham

Ittycheria [2004 (1) KLT 767]. Challenging the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate

Authority, Tirur as R.C.A No.35 of 2017 and by judgment dated 23.10.2018, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and

dismissed the appeal.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Adv.Tom K. Thomas, argued that the order of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority

were perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and that there was no acceptable evidence available to establish the monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-

as fixed by the courts below. According to the learned counsel, for a small business like selling of tapioca, fixing a fair rent at the rate of Rs.6,000/-

was too unrealistic and the same would render the tenant into a state of penury. It was pointed out that the acceptance of the Commission report and

the fixation of rent on the basis of the said report has led to great prejudice to the tenant, especially, since the Advocate Commissioner was not even

examined.

Adv.R.T Pradeep on the other hand, submitted that the orders of both the courts below do not warrant any interference and the same are perfectly

justified especially, on account of the location of the building.

We have considered the rival contentions. We remind ourselves that we are exercising jurisdiction under Sec.20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and

Rent) Control Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). While exercising our jurisdiction under Sec.20 of the Act, we are required to satisfy ourselves as to the

legality, regularity and propriety of the order under challenge. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.20 is a limited one and in the exercise

of such limited jurisdiction, this Court cannot replace the views of the Appellate Authority with the views of this Court merely because an alternative

view is possible, particularly by re-appreciating the old evidence.

With the above legal proposition in mind when we analyse the facts of this case, it can be seen that the Advocate Commissioner who visited the site

after notice to both parties had reported that the rent of other rooms in the same building are fetching Rs.6,000/-. The courts below have considered

the locality of the building as one situated in an important commercial area in Tirur and after reference to the skyrocketing of the cost of building and

the reduction in purchasing power of money, took the rent pointed out by the Advocate Commissioner as a yard stick while fixing the rent. In the

absence of any objection to the Commission report, the Rent Control Court as well as Appellate Authority did not place any reliance upon the type of

business being conducted by the tenant. The type of business conducted by the tenant is not a criteria for reckoning while fixing the fair rent.

In our view, there is no perversity in the findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority and nor is there any impropriety or

irregularity attached to the procedure adopted.

In the circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the order of the Rent Control Court, as well as the Appellate Authority, cannot be

found fault with. On the other hand, the same is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In view of the above, we dismiss this revision petition.