Muhammed Rafi vs Noorjahan

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The tenant in an application for fixation of fair rent under section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act), is the petitioner in this revision petition.

The subject matter of the proceedings is a shop room measuring 187 sq.ft. in a building consisting of several shop rooms. The shop room was leased out to the tenant on 23.12.2008 on a monthly rent of Rs.850/-. According to the landlady, the area has developed substantially since the lease arrangement and the agreed rent is therefore, meagre. She, therefore, prayed for fixation of fair rent of the shop room at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month from 01.05.2010. The tenant objected to the prayer for fixation of fair rent contending that there is no need for fixation of fair rent since the rental arrangement commenced on the agreed rate only on 23.12.2008.

The Rent Control Court found from the materials on record that the building is situated in a prominent locality; that the importance of the locality increased many fold after the arrangement, and consequently, fixed the fair rent of the shop room at Rs.2,800/- per month from 01.05.2010. The tenant challenged the decision of the Rent Control Court in appeal. The Appellate Authority, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court. Hence, this revision petition.

The materials on record indicate that the shop room adjacent to the shop room let out to the tenant was one let out by the landlady to the Kerala State Beverages Corporation and the rent in respect of the same was revised to Rs.15/- per sq.ft from 01.01.2013. It is seen that it is on the aforesaid basis that the fair rent of the premises was fixed by the authorities below.

The learned counsel for the tenant submitted that fair rent should not have been fixed by the authorities below based on the rent agreed to be paid to the landlady by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. It was argued by the learned counsel that having regard to the nuisance caused to the public on account of the functioning of the outlets of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, no landlord will give any premises to the Beverages Corporation for running their outlets and the rent agreed to be paid by the Beverages Corporation for their outlets would always be far above the fair rent payable in respect of the same. According to the learned counsel, if the evidence adduced by the landlady to prove the rent agreed to be paid by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation is eschewed, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the rent that is being paid by the tenant is not the fair rent.

We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant. We have also perused the records of the case.

The fact that the subject shop room is one abutting the National Highway is not disputed by the tenant. Similarly, the fact that there are several commercial and other establishments and institutions within a radius of about one kilometre from the shop room is also not seriously disputed.

Even though elaborate oral and documentary evidence were let in by the landlady to prove the said facts, the tenant did not adduce any evidence as regards the commercial importance of the locality. As noted, the room adjacent to the shop room let out to the tenant was occupied by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation is not disputed by the tenant. It is seen from Ext.A9 communication that the rent of the premises occupied by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation was raised to Rs.15,000/- per month from the year 2013 onwards, at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.ft. As noted, it is based on Exts.A8 and A9 communications issued by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation that the authorities below fixed the fair rent of the premises at the rate of Rs.15/- sq.ft. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the tenant that the Kerala State Beverages Corporation will have to offer rent more than the fair rent for the purpose of running their outlet on account of its nuisance value, cannot be accepted. True, the rent was revised by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation at Rs.15/-sq.ft. only from 2013 and the fixation of fair rent is sought in the subject proceedings with effect from 01.05.2010. But it is seen that the area of the premises let out to the Kerala State Beverages Corporation is 1000 sq. ft, whereas the area of the premises let out to the tenant is only 187 sq.ft. It is common knowledge that smaller premises would get higher rent when compared to larger premises. That apart, having regard to the limitations of the jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act, we do not think that the same can be a reason for this Court to interfere with the decisions taken by the authorities below.

The revision petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.