Point of Law - Appellate Authority held that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained

ORDER :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vatakara, filed by the respondent herein-landlord seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room, under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The tenant entered appearance and filed counter in R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 opposing the order of eviction sought for. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlord was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The tenant was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on his side. The report of the Advocate Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.

2. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court, by the order dated 27.03.2019, dismissed R.C.P.No.1 of 2018. The Rent Control Court found that the need projected in the R.C.P. for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide; that the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is not attracted; and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. However, the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was declined on a finding that the monthly rent of the petition schedule shop room was fixed as Rs.2,500/- by mutual consent, as evidenced by Ext.A2 kychit dated 02.09.2013 and Ext.A3 agreement dated 12.11.2015, and hence the landlord is precluded from initiating eviction proceedings against the tenant for a period of 5 years, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan [(2011) 7 SCC 555]. Therefore, R.C.P. itself is premature and not maintainable. The Rent Control Court also declined the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act, on a finding that the enhancement of rent after the alleged material alteration would show the implied consent of the landlord to the material alteration of the petition schedule shop room.

3. Challenging the dismissal of R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 by the order dated 27.03.2019 of the Rent Control Court, the landlord filed R.C.A.No.94 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority, by the judgment dated 15.03.2021 allowed R.C.A.No.94 of 2019 with cost. The Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the bona fide need of the landlord for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority found that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained. Therefore, the guidelines laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad [(2011) 7 SCC 555] has no application to the facts of the case. Therefore, the landlord was found entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority also found that the alteration made by the tenant is a material alteration affecting the value and utility of the petition schedule building materially and permanently, which is not an alteration authorised by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority granted an order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act and the tenant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlord, within one month from the date of that order.

4. Challenging the judgment dated 15.03.2021 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.94 of 2019, the tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.

5. On 26.05.2021, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondent by speed post. The petitioner was also perm