Muhammed Rafi vs Noorjahan

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.—The tenant, challenging the order fixing fair rent u/s 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), filed appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. The tenant also sought for stay of the operation of the impugned order directing him to pay the enhanced rate of rent at 2,800/- per month with effect from 1.5.2010. The Appellate Authority, as per the order in I.A. No. 798 of 2014 in R.C.A. No. 34 of 2014 dated 12.3.2014, stayed the operation of the order fixing fair rent on condition that the tenant shall pay rent at the rate of 1,800/- per month with effect from 1.5.2010 and continue to pay the same till the disposal of the appeal. The tenant was further directed to pay the arrears of rent from 1.5.2010 within three months from the date of the order. It is challenging the above order in I.A. No. 798 of 2014, this Original Petition (Rent Control) is filed.

The learned counsel for the tenant submits that the tenant was put in possession of the building on 23.12.2008 on a monthly rent of 850/-. The landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent in the year 2010 and the Rent Control Court directed the tenant to pay rent at the rate of 2,800/- per month with effect from 1.5.2010, which is patently exorbitant. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that if the tenant was asked to pay rent @ 1,800/- per month with effect from 1.5.2010, it would deprive the challenge made by him before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the very purpose of the appeal will be defeated if he is directed to pay the rent arrears with effect from 1.5.2010.

We have gone through the order impugned as well as the order passed by the Rent Control Court fixing fair rent. The Rent Control Court had considered the various aspects relating to fixation of fair rent. The Appellate Authority, while exercising its discretion, directed the tenant to pay rent @ 1,800/- per month, which is less than 1,000/- which was ordered to be paid by the Rent Control Court. We do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction committed by the Appellate Authority while exercising its discretion staying the order impugned before it. Accordingly, we decline to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Original Petition (Rent Control) is dismissed.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period granted by the Appellate Authority for making payment of arrears as ordered in the impugned order would expire by 12.6.2014. He sought for a further period of three months to comply with the order. Considering the facts and circumstances, by taking a lenient view, we grant a further period of two months for complying with the directions in the impugned order regarding arrears of rent. We also direct the petitioner to serve a copy of this judgment on the counsel appearing for the respondent in the court below.