The court emphasized tenant protections against disproportionate rent arrears due to procedural delays and reaffirmed fair rent determinations rooted in equitable principles.

Dated this the 25th day of November, 2025 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J .

In these revision petitions filed by both the tenant and the landlord, we are required to determine a complex issue regarding the date from which the fair rent should take effect. Given the peculiar circumstances of this case, where the proceedings have remained pending for over ten years from the date of the rent control petition, directing the tenant to pay arrears at the newly fixed fair rent for the entire intervening period would impose an unbearable burden. This is especially so when the difference between the existing rent and the fair rent now determined exceeds 150 times the current payable rent.

2. The petition for fair rent fixation was filed in the year

2013. No doubt, the landlord was getting only a sum of Rs.225/- per month for a shop room having 550 sq.ft. situated in Aluva town. The building is perhaps outdated and not standing with a modern outlook, but its locational importance cannot be overlooked. Considering the above, the Rent Controller, by order dated 27.02.2018, fixed the fair rent at Rs.120/- per sq.ft and directed the tenant to pay Rs.60,600/- per month. In the petition for fixation of fair rent, the landlord sought only fair rent at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. It appears that the landlord sought an amendment to the pleadings to fix it at Rs.90,000/- per month. That amendment was not carried out. In R.C.A. No.16/2018, the Appellate Authority, noting this fact, remanded back the matter. Thereafter, an amendment was carried out. A commission application was also filed. Accordingly, the Rent Controller, based on the evidence and relying on the commission report, by an order dated 24.02.2021, fixed the fair rent at Rs.25,000/- per month. The matter was carried in appeal by the tenant. A cross-appeal was also filed by the landlord. In the appeal, the fair rent was fixed at Rs.32,000/- per month from the date of the petition and 5% increase every year from 2014 onwards. Challenging this order, both the landlord and the tenant have come up in revision.

3. As per the statutory provision, if there is no property tax fixed for the building, fair rent shall be fixed after taking into consideration the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation. The landlord did not attempt to adduce evidence to fix the fair rent based on the property tax. In this case, the fair rent has been fixed based on the commercial importance of the premises, the commission report, and also by taking note of the nature of the lease and the rent levied in respect of the buildings in the locality. The tenant, apparently fearing that he may not be able to pay the rent as now fixed, surrendered the building during the pendency of the revision. The present case now survives only for the landlord to claim arrears of rent based on the fair rent fixed.

4. We have a doubt as to whether the landlord would be in a position to claim arrears of rent from 2013 onwards. The learned counsel for the landlord states that the cause of action arises only from the date of the order of this Court or the Appellate Court, and therefore, he can very well claim arrears of rent from 2013 onwards in a civil suit. The question regarding limitation is a matter to be adjudicated in the civil suit. Therefore, we leave this question.

5. There is no doubt that the landlord is, in principle, entitled to have the fair rent fixed with effect from the date of the petition. However, we find that directing the tenant to pay arrears calculated at a rate nearly 150 times higher than the existing rent would jeopardise the very continuance of the tenancy and irreparably damage the landlord–tenant relationship. Section 24 of the Rent Control Act mandates that proceedings should be disposed of within four months from the date on which the parties enter appearance. Where there is no delay attributable to the tenant, it is inequitable to order payment of arrears from the date of the rent con