Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4653
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ
ABDUL GAFOOR – Appellant
Versus
JOY PETER – Respondent
RCRev. 223 2018
SRI.K.B.GANGESH, SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH, SRI.LIJU M.P, SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K., SRI.ABE RAJAN, SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM, RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
The court emphasized the restricted role of revisional authority under the Act, asserting that it cannot reassess evidence but can review for legal correctness.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act - [Section 5, Section 20] - The court affirmed the fair rent determination made under Section 5 and analyzed the limitations set forth in Section 20 regarding the revisional powers of the court, determining no irregularities were present in the prior rulings.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, landlords of a commercial building in Palakkad, sought to fix fair rent significantly higher than the long-standing rates due to increased costs, while tenants challenged the claims citing the building's poor condition and outdated rental agreements.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Control Court fixed fair rent based on evidence, leading to appeals against the determination, which were dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The court found no legal or evidential missteps in the earlier judgments.
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority exhibited any illegality or irregularity that warranted intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: The revisional court's scope is limited to reviewing errors of law or evaluating misapplication of evidence; no infringement was found in the governing principles of fair rent assessment.
Final Decision: All rent control revisions are dismissed, confirming the previous judgments with a modification allowing time for clearing rent arrears.
O R D E R
C.S.Sudha, J.
These rent control revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) have been filed against the common judgment dated 29/11/2017 in R.C.A.Nos.30/2016, 31/2016, 32/2016, 33/2016 and 34/2016 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA)-V, Palakkad, which appeals are against the common order dated 30/07/2016 in R.C.P.No.11/2015, 12/2015 and 13/2015, on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Palakkad. The revision petitioners in R.C.R.Nos.223/2018, 224/2018 and 246/2018 are the petitioners in the R.C.Ps. The revision petitioners in R.C.R.Nos.106/2018 and 149/2018 are the respondents in R.C.P.Nos.12/2015 and 13/2015. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.
2. R.C.P.No.11/2015, 12/2015 and 13/2015 were filed under Section 5 of the Act seeking fixation of fair rent. The petitioners-landlords are same in all the R.C.Ps. The respondents-tenants are different. According to the petitioners, they are the landlords of the building named K.P.Complex situated in an important commercial locality in Palakkad. The building consists of several rooms. The petition schedule rooms in the three R.C.Ps. were let out in the year 1986 for a monthly rent of ₹500/-, ₹1,000/-. and ₹600/- respectively. The building is situated in a commercially important locality. Several public institutions are situated in and around the locality. The complex has parking facility also. The rent of the shop rooms was fixed years back. There has been considerable increase in the cost of living index. Hence, the petitioners claimed enhancement of rent and fixation of fair rent. In R.C.P.No.11/2015, the rent at the rate of ₹9,500 per month was claimed. In R.C.P.No.12/2015 rent at the rate of ₹18,000/- per month and in R.C.P.No.13/2015, rent at the rate of ₹8,000/- per month was sought to be fixed.
3. Respondents-tenants filed counter denying the allegations in the R.C.Ps. They denied the allegation that the building is situated in a commercially important area. The building housing the petition schedule rooms is a very old building. No maintenance work is being done by the petitioners-landlords. The parking area available is not sufficient. The rate of rent claimed by the petitioners is quite excessive and hence they contended that the petitioners are not entitled to rent at the rates claimed by them in the petitions.
4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the petitioners. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. The reports of the advocate commissioner have been marked as Exts.C1 and C2. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the RCC allowed the R.C.Ps. Rent at the rate of ₹20/- per sq.ft.; ₹22.50/- per sq.ft. and ₹25/- per sq.ft. has been fixed for the petition schedule rooms in R.C.P.Nos.11/2015, 12/2015 and 13/2015 respectively. It was also directed that the respondents are liable to pay the rent with effect from 02/02/2015 onwards. Against the order fixing fair rent, respondents-tenants filed R.C.A.Nos.29/2016, 34/2016 and 33/2016. Aggrieved by the rate at which the fair rent had been fixed, the petitioners- landlords filed R.C.A.Nos.30/2016, 31/2016 and 32/2016. All the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment confirming the findings of the RCC. Aggrieved, both the petitioners and the tenants have come up in revision against the concurrent findings of the RCC and the RCAA.
5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the concurrent findings of the RCC and RCAA suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.
6. Heard Sri. Sajan Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioners in R.C.R.Nos.223/2018, 224/2018 and 246/2018, Sri. James Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner in R.C.R.No.106/2018 and Sri.K.B.Ganesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in R.C.R.No.149/2018.
7. The scope of interference by the revisional court
