Fair rent determinations require strong evidential support, particularly concerning the comparability of rooms in terms of features and amenities.

O R D E R

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

These revision petitions arise from R.C.P.Nos.82 of 2013, 83 of 2013, 85 of 2013 and 86 of 2013 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. They were proceedings under Section 5 (1) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) for fixation of fair rent in respect of four different rooms in a commercial complex occupied by a common tenant. The areas of the rooms are 163.6 sq.ft., 177 sq.ft., 808 sq.ft. and 189 sq.ft respectively and the tenant was paying rent for the rooms at the rate of Rs.850, Rs.1,250, Rs.1,850 and Rs.400 respectively. The Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,150, Rs.2,000, Rs.2,500 and Rs.750 respectively with 10% increase for every year. Though the landlord challenged the decision of the Rent Control Court in appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court. It is against the concurrent decisions aforesaid of the authorities below that these revision petitions are preferred by the landlords.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the landlords as also learned counsel for the tenant.

3. The materials indicate that it is having regard to the criteria laid down by this Court inEdger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria, 2004 (1) KLT 767 , that the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent for the subject rooms. It is seen that it was contended by the landlords in the appeal based on Exts.C1 to C4(a) reports that the tenants in similar premises in the locality are paying more rent than what is fixed by the Rent Control Court as fair rent. Similarly, it was contended by the landlords in the appeal that the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court is less than the fair rent earlier fixed in respect of an identical premises in the very same building. The Appellate Authority dealt with the said contentions elaborately and rejected the same. Paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Appellate Authority dealing with said contentions reads thus: “17. On an anxious consideration of the said submission and the materials on record, I am of the view that there is no merit in it. It is true that in Ext.C1 report, the commissioner has reported that for the room near to the petition schedule room in RCP.85/2013 bearing No.9/456(H), the rent paid is Rs.5,062/-, for room No.9/456(F), the rent paid is Rs.5,250/-, and for room No.9/456(B), the rent paid is Rs.5,000/-. It is also reported that room No.9/456(F) is having 264sq.ft., and room No.9/456(B) is having 285sq.ft. But it is very pertinent to note that the above findings have been recorded by the commissioner on the basis of hearsay information, provided by the alleged occupiers of the rooms. The commissioner has not physically inspected any of the rooms in order to verify the identical features, area, and amenities of those rooms. Similar is the fact with regard to Exts.C2 to C4 reports also. Even though in these reports, the commissioner has mentioned about the rents paid by other shop owners, all of them are based on hearsay information provided to the commissioner. The petitioners have not examined any of the shop owners occupying the nearby rooms to prove the above facts. If that be so, no much reliance can be placed upon Exts.C1 to C4 reports to ascertain the similarity of the rooms and the rent paid to those rooms. It is true that as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, Ext.A10 receipt-book shows payment of rent at the rate of Rs.6,000/- by one Anaz for room No.9/456(F). But as stated earlier, in the absence of evidence to prove the identical features, amenities and the area of the room thus occupied by Anaz, the same cannot be relied upon to fix the fair rent of the petition schedule premises. Similarly, Ext.A9 also cannot be relied upon to ascertain the fair rent of the petition schedule premises since, there is no evidence to prove the identical features and amenities available in that room. Therefore, on an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the view