Mary Joseph, J.

1. R.C.R.No.297 of 2014 is filed by the respondent in R.C.A.No.15 of 2014, of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam and the petitioner-landlord in R.C.P.No.82/2012 of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The respondent in the Revision Petition is the appellant in the said R.C.A. and respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition.

2.R.C.R.No.316 of 2014 is filed by the appellant in R.C.A.No.15 of 2014 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam and the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.82 of 2012 of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The respondent in the R.C.R is the respondent in the said R.C.A. and the petitioner/landlord in the Rent Control Petition.

3.Both the Revision Petitions cited supra are filed challenging the fixation of divergent rates of rent by the authorities below for the petition schedule room under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, which for the sake of convenience would hereinafter be referred to as "the Act". The parties to these revision petitions shall also, for the sake of convenience, be referred to hereinafter in accordance with their original status in the R.C.P as landlord and tenant.

4.It is contended by Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, who has put forth the discontentment of the landlord with the judgment dated 14.08.2014 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam in R.C.A.No.15/2014 modifying the fair rent of Rs.55 per sq. feet fixed by the Rent Control Court by reducing it to Rs.45 per sq.ft. It is contended at the outset that the Appellate Authority has proceeded on baseless assumptions and surmises to reject the prayer for enhancement of monthly rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft., that the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate or apply the principles of law laid down by this Court in Edger Ferus v Abraham Itticheria (2004(4) KLT 767) and which has been upheld by the Apex Court in 2009(4) KLT 673 that the Appellate Authority ought to have considered the best evidence available before it consisting of the oral testimony of P.W.1, the landlord, P.W.2 the tenant occupying the third room from the tenanted premises in question which form part of a larger building, namely "Dr.Kartha Complex", Ext.C1, the commission report and Ext.X1 series of rental receipts issued by the landlord in the case in question to P.W.2 and finally that the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam ought to have placed reliance on Ext.C1 commission report wherein the locational advantages of the tenanted premises and the prevalence of rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month, for an adjacent room having an area of 160 sq.ft. situated in the building, namely, 'Kartha Complex' of which the petition schedule room is a part, are described.

5.It is contended by Sri.George Cherian, the learned counsel representing the tenant that the authorities below went wrong in holding on the basis of Ext.C1 in disregard of the objection raised by the petitioner that the petition schedule shop room was having an area of 250 sq.ft. in a circumstance when the rent deed was not forthcoming and the Advocate Commissioner was not examined that the Appellate Authority ought to have considered that the examination of P.W.2 was at the fag end of the trial, to the surprise of the tenant and that on account of the collusion allegedly involved in the evidence let in, the Rent Control Appellate Authority ought not to have relied upon Ext.X1 series of unstamped rental receipts, despite the opposition raised by the opposite side against its marking.

6.Though rival pleas are put forth by the respective counsel as referred supra, the ultimate urge of both of them was for setting aside the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam in R.C.A.No.15/2014 on the alleged ground of it being vitiated by illegality, impropriety and incorrectness. Sri.Dinesh Shenoy, the learned counsel also canvassed during the course of his argument to maintain the fair rent at Rs.55/- per sq.ft.