Fair rent determination must balance tenant's ability to pay with local market conditions and property value, ensuring just increases over time.

ORDER

Mohammed Nias.C.P.J.

The tenant/ revision petitioner challenges the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District and Sessions Court) Alappuzha, in RCA No.5 of 2022, dated 17.01.2023, dismissing the appeal preferred by him confirming the fair rent fixed under Section 5 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The respondent/landlord filed the petition under Section

5(1) of the Act, contending that the building was let out to the tenant on 11.1.1997 for using the same as an advocate office on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. There has been no enhancement after the original letting, and the prevailing rent for similar rooms in the locality is Rs.1,500/-. Since the tenant did not pay the same despite the lawyer's notice, the petition was filed seeking a fair rent of Rs.1500/-.

3. The tenant resisted the petition contending that the building was originally a thatched one and that he had replaced the roof strengthening with new rafters and tiles, spending around Rs.15,000/- in May 2009. The landlord has never attended to the periodical maintenance. The tenant contended that the landlord is demanding an unconscionable increase in rent as for a similar room in the locality, the rent is only Rs.400/-.

4. `The rent control court, after considering the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and marking Exts.A1 to A7 and also the evidence on the side of the respondent RW1 and RW2, and Exts.B1 to B4 and Ext.X1 marked as third party exhibit found that the fair rent of the petition schedule shop building was Rs.1200/- per month from 01.01.2015 onwards. Against the said order of the rent control court, the tenant filed an appeal. 5. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced, the appellate authority again concurred with the view of the rent control court and affirmed the fixation or fair rent at Rs.1200/- per month. 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argues that the enhancement to Rs.1200/- from 01.01.2015 is illegal, and the rent prevalent for similar rooms is in the range of Rs.250 to Rs.400. The evidence of tenants who were forced to execute lease deeds at the rate of Rs.1000/- and Rs.1500/- per month is only on account of the threat and pressure exerted by the landlords. It is also argued that the courts below have not considered the principles laid down by this Court in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Itticheria ( 2004 KHC 123 ). We find from the available record that both the authorities had considered the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, in the light of the principles laid down inEdger Ferus (supra). We also note that the petition schedule shop room is close to the court complex, Cherthala, abutting the old national Highway. The importance of the locality has not been disputed even by RW1. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 also shows that they are paying rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- to Rs.1800/-. It is also brought out in evidence that the petition schedule room has an excess area with a space having a width of 6 feet on the rear side, and therefore, the petition schedule shop room is bigger in area compared to the rooms occupied by PWs 2 to 4. We also note that no enhancement has been made since May 1997. We hold that the authorities had correctly fixed the fair rent at Rs.1200/- when the landlord's claim was Rs.1500/- per month. We do not find any error warranting interference in this revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.

The revision petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.