IMPORTANT POINT
Fair rent fixation must reflect market conditions and not impose undue hardship on tenants, allowing for installment payments of arrears.

ORDER :

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

The tenant in the Rent Control Petition is the present revision petitioner. The petition filed by the landlord for fixation of fair rent as per Section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Rent Control Act’, for short) was allowed by the Rent Control Court and the rent is fixed as Rs.30,000/- per month. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order by holding that the rent fixed is reasonable. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The tenant has been running a wholesale and retail business of selling paper bags, paper cups and other similar goods in the petition-scheduled building. The rental arrangement was originally made between the father and brother of the petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, and the tenancy was later continued by the petitioner. The agreed rent for the building was Rs.3,000/- per month. According to the respondent, the building measures 1200 Sq.feet. The landlord contended that the tenanted premises is in the middle of a commercially important area in the Thrissur town and the said building is surrounded by prominent commercial and other institutions. Accordingly, the respondent approached the Rent Control Court claiming fair rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per Sq.feet i.e. Rs.60,000/- per month.

3. The petitioner defended the claim by contending that he has been paying monthly rent of Rs.3,300/- and the building, which has no parking facility, is situated by the side of a very narrow road having only a width of 12 feet. The consumers of the tenant find it difficult to access the scheduled room through such a narrow road, especially since a toddy shop and a Beverage store - both attracting heavy foot traffic - operate nearby and thus it would be iniquitous to enhance the rent, it is urged.

4. After considering Ext.C1, the commission report, along with the testimonies of the petitioner (PW2), the Thrissur Warehouse Manager of the Beverages Corporation (PW1) and the tenant (RW1), the Rent Control Court concluded that Rs.30,000/- would be the fair rent for the said building. The Commissioner assessed the area of the building as 1100 Sq.feet. After appreciating the entire evidence, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the petition- scheduled building lies in an important locality within Thrissur Corporation limits and hence the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court is justifiable. The Appellate Authority further noted that the present rent was fixed way back in 2004.

5. We heard Smt.Girija K.Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Smt.Girija K.Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, guided us extensively through the commission report for justifying her contention that fixation of fair rent, at ten times of the agreed rent, is illegal and it flies in the face of all settled principles. According to her, the tenanted building, as noticed by the Commissioner, lies by the side of a narrow internal road, and it is old and damaged. The learned counsel further contended that all the commercial and other institutions noted by the Commissioner are situated by the side of major roads.

7. Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the monthly rent being paid for the outlet of Beverages Corporation, which lies adjacent to the tenanted building is Rs.54,000/-. The learned counsel persuasively argued that the area of the said outlet is only 825 Sq.feet and thus, the rent fixed is only fair and reasonable. The learned counsel also led us through the relevant portion of the oral evidence as well as the report of the Commissioner.

8. Ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the concurrent finding of facts, unless there are manifest and glaring irregularities. In Mohammad Ahmad & Another v.