Point of Law: As per sub-section (1) of Section 20, in cases, where the Appellate Authority empowered under Section 18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

ORDER :

Ajithkumar, J.

This Rent Control Revision is filed by the 1st respondent in R.C.P.No.201/2005 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. He is the tenant in the building bearing No.39/2052, the ground floor portion of the building by name Aiswarya Building, M.G.Road at Ernakulam. The 1st respondent herein is the landlord.

2. The revision petitioner has filed the R.C.P. under Section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The Rent Control Court disposed of the R.C.P. by order dated 31.01.2011 fixing fair rent at the rate of Rs.6,650/-per month and also providing for enhancement of the rent at 10% in every two years. An appeal was preferred by the 1st respondent challenging the order of the Rent Control Court as R.C.A.No.38/2011. That appeal was allowed as per judgment dated 30.08.2013 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam and the fair rent was refixed as Rs.11,400/-per month with a provision for enhancement at the rate of 15% per annum in every two years.

3. The revision petitioner assails the said judgment to be wrong insofar as the Appellate Authority placed reliance on inadmissible evidence and at the same time failed to take into account relevant evidence available on record. It is also contended that the dilapidation of the building and lack of its direct access to the M.G.Road were ignored by the Appellate Authority while enhancing the rate of rent by modifying the order of the Rent Control Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.Shyam, appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.P.Benjamin Paul appearing for the 1st respondent.

5. In Edgar Ferus v. Abraham Itticheriya [2004 (1) KLT 767], this Court laid down the principles governing the fixation of fair rent and the Apex Court affirmed the said decision in Edgar Ferus v. Abraham Itticheriya [2009 (1) KLT 673 (SC)]. The Rent Control Court, following the guidelines, fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.7/-per sq.ft. However, the Appellate Authority did not agree with the finding of the Rent Control Court for the reason, essentially, that it would not stand on the face of the assertion made by the landlord/PW1 during cross-examination that the monthly rent being paid by the tenant occupying 800 sq.ft. area in the 2nd floor of the same building was Rs.12,100/-, which is Rs.15 per sq.ft. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the said evidence is unsupported by any pleading and the Appellate Authority ought not to have acted upon that sole testimony to set at naught the well reasoned finding of the Rent Control Court.

6. Section 5(1) of the Act reads thus:

"5. Determination of Fair Rent.-(1) The Rent Control Court shall, on application of the tenant or landlord of a building, fix the fair rent for such building after holding such enquiry as it thinks fit."

7. Section 5 makes it clear that once the Rent Control Court is called upon either by the tenant or the landlord to decide the fair rent, it is the responsibility of the court, after holding an enquiry as it thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, to fix the fair rent. In order to arrive at a decision regarding the fair rent, the powers of the court are not circumscribed by the pleadings. The court can take into consideration the evidence let in by the parties and relevant to the issue while fixing the fair rent, following the guidelines laid down in Edgar Ferus (supra).

8. In the instant case, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority acted upon the oral testimony of PW1, the landlord, for deciding as to what shall be the fair rent. He deposed during cross-examination that monthly rent being paid by the tenant occupying 800 sq.ft. area in the 2nd floor of the same building was Rs.12,100/-. That evidence remained unchallenged. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner argued that in the absence of any other evidence to support, either oral or documentary, the sole testimony of PW1, which cam