The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof is on the landlords to establish the market rent for similar buildings in the locality when seeking fair rent fixation under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. The court also clarified that mutual agreements between parties consenting to rent increases should be interpreted in line with prevailing market rent.

COMMON ORDER

T.V. Anilkumar, J.

The revision petitioners in RCR.No.264/2016 are the landlords of a shop room bearing door No. 40/433 having 1,051 sq.ft of plinth area situated in the ground floor of a building called Chandrika buildings in MG Road, Ernakulam Town. The revision petitioner in RCR.No. 344/2016 is the tenant of the said shop room conducting a show room of 'NIKE' products.

2. Being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam in RCP.No.173/2012 passed on 31.10.2014 fixing fair rent of the said shop room at the rate of Rs.50 per sq.ft with effect from the date of petition on the motion of the landlords, both parties filed appeals challenging the order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. RCA.No. 1/2015 filed by the tenant and RCA.No.3/2015 filed by the landlords, were dismissed by the Appellate Authority by a common order dated 18.06.2016 affirming the order of the Rent Control Court. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of both appeals, the parties have come up in revision before this Court invoking Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (herein after referred to as 'the Act').

3. The petition schedule shop room situated in the ground floor of Chandrika Building is part of a four storied building located in Ernakulam Town. The tenancy arrangement between parties commenced in 1970 on initial monthly rent of Rs.1,050/-. The monthly rent was later increased periodically and in 2010, it was further enhanced to Rs.23,903/- per month. According to the landlords, the shop room is provided with all the modern amenities and is also located in a commercially important place having proximity to the Bus and Railway stations. Further, many jewellery shops and famous hotels are also situated within a radius of 200mts. from the petition schedule shop room. The contention of the landlords before the courts below was that the monthly rent of similar shop rooms prevailing in the locality was Rs.120/- per sq.ft and therefore they were also entitled to have fair rent for the schedule shop room enhanced to monthly rent of Rs.1,26,120/- at the same rate per sq.ft. from the date of petition filed under Section 5 of the Act.

4. The tenant does not dispute either the area of the shop room let out or the existing landlord tenant relationship between the parties. The contention of the tenant is that fair rent sought to be fixed at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.ft is not reasonable but only exorbitant and the shop rooms placed in similar circumstances in the locality do not fetch monthly rate of Rs.120/- as claimed by the landlords. The commercial importance of the locality was questioned and the tenant further denied that the petition schedule shop room had any modern amenities. It was alleged that during monsoon, water collected in the near by premises used to seep into the ground floor and disturb his business. The shop room did not have any advantage of car parking for the customers. According to the tenant, the monthly rent being paid to the landlords since 2012, is Rs. 27,711/- and not Rs.23,903/- as alleged by the latter. The demand for fixation of fair rent is also opposed on the ground that tenant has been paying revised rent at the enhanced rate once in every two years as agreed between the parties.

5. The Rent Control Court on the motion of the landlords deputed an advocate commissioner to report the alleged commercial importance of the locality as well as the existing amenities alleged to be attached to the schedule shop room. The Advocate Commissioner was further asked to report the prevailing market rent of similarly placed buildings in the locality. It examined PW1 to PW3 and RW1. Exhibits A1 and A2 on the side of the landlords and Exhibit B1 on the side of tenant were also marked. Exhibits X1 and X2, and Exhibit-C1 are the other items of documentary evidence on record.

6. The Rent Control Court on the basis of the Commission Report came to the conclusion that Chandrika buildin