Dismissed

R.Raghavan v. G.Sudhakaran Nair

Kerala HC3 Dec 2013RCRev./177/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition filed by a tenant challenging the enhancement of fair rent from `1,000/- to `1,150/- by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The High Court held the rent fixed was just and reasonable given the locality and dismissed the revision confirming the Appellate Authority's order.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitions dismissed; orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed; no costs awarded.

R.Raghavan Vs G.Sudhakaran Nair — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

RCRev..No. 177 of 2013 () --------------------------

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 17/2012 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM DATED 26-03-2013

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 41/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT,TRIVANDRUM DATED 10-01-2012

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶9

¶10

R.RAGHAVAN ADVOCATE, T.C.25/3072, VANCHIYOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -----------------------------------

¶13

G.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 67 YEARS

¶14

S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, T.C.25/3068, MOOKAMBIKA BUILDING VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV

¶16

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-12-2013, ALONG WITH R.C.R.No.178/2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶18

R.C.R.Nos.177/2013 & 178/2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2013

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶22

Both these revision petitions are filed by a tenant of a room of which

¶23

the respondent is the landlord. Both the petitioner and the respondent are

¶24

practicing lawyers. The proceedings initiated by the landlord is one for

¶25

fixing fair rent under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent

¶26

Control) Act, (for short, the 'Act'). The monthly rent was `500/- as on the date of filing of the rent control petition. The fair rent sought to be fixed

¶27

was at 1,500/- per month and the Rent Control Court fixed it at 1,000/-

¶28

per month and the Appellate Authority has refixed the amount at `1,150/per month. There were two appeals before the Appellate Authority, one

¶29

filed by the tenant and the other filed by the landlord.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant Shri R.S.Kalkura

¶31

submitted that fixation of fair rent at `1,500/- is unconscionable and the

¶32

reasons pointed out by the authorities below are not supportable in view of

¶33

R.C.R.Nos.177/2013 & 178/2013

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

the decision in Midland Traders (M/s.) and others v. Miriam Elias and

¶36

others [2010 (4) KLT 17] as well as the decision in Edger Ferus v.

¶37

Abraham Ittycheria [2004 (1) KLT 767]. It is also submitted that in respect of a similar room in the building in question, a Division Bench of this Court

¶38

in R.C.R.No.267/2010 has confirmed the rent fixed at `800/- per month.

¶39

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-landlord Shri

¶40

D.Sajeev submitted that the rent fixed is reasonable especially in the light

¶41

of the importance of the locality. It is situated only 100 meters away from

¶42

the Court Complex at Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram and is near to

¶43

various government offices.

¶44

We have gone through the orders passed by the authorities. It

¶45

is in evidence that the room in question including the veranda is having an

¶46

area of 327.66 sq.feet. The landlord has adduced evidence showing the

¶47

importance of the locality. PWs.1 and 2 have been examined and Ext.A1

¶48

is marked on his side. The tenant was examined as CPW1. Apart from

¶49

the tenant, one witness was also examined as CPW2. Exts.B1 and B2,

¶50

R.C.R.Nos.177/2013 & 178/2013

¶51

-:3:-

¶52

and B3 series were marked on his side. Exts.C1 and X1, X2 and X2(a)

¶53

were marked as court exhibits.

¶54

The reasoning adopted by the Rent Control Court shows that

¶55

the locality is important. Various Government offices are situated very near

¶56

to the petition schedule building. Annual rental value assessed by the Corporation as per Ext.X2(a) is `960/- which was during 1993-94, and, therefore, it was not relied upon. Various other factors have also been

¶57

pointed out. It is also stated by the Rent Control Court that there is no periodical maintenance in the building and considering the age of the

¶58

building, the fair rent of the petition schedule premises is fixed at `1,000/-

¶59

per month.

¶60

While considering the legality of the said order, the Appellate

¶61

Authority relied upon the guidelines in Edger Ferus's case [2004 (1) KLT 767]. It is stated that the building is proximate to the District Court complex

¶62

which is clear from the evidence of the Commissioner. It is also stated in

¶63

paragraph 14 that there is no quarrel regarding the significance of the

¶64

R.C.R.Nos.177/2013 & 178/2013

¶65

-:4:-

¶66

locality, particularly, with reference to the purpose for which the building is

¶67

let out to the tenant. It is also stated that there is no quarrel regarding the

¶68

increased demand for accommodation and the non availability of the

¶69

building. The building herein is a double storied one having 12 rooms in

¶70

whole and the petition schedule room is situated on the western end of the

¶71

first floor. It is in these circumstances, the Appellate Authority found that

¶72

the existing rent in the locality is more than `1,000/- and the landlord is

¶73

entitled for an enhancement of `150/- to the rent fixed by the Rent Controller. It is also stated that the tenant is in occupation of a portion of

¶74

the veranda, which is clear from the evidence. Accordingly, the rent has

¶75

been fixed at `1,150/-.

¶76

Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶77

that the rent has to be reduced to that of the rent fixed in R.C.R.No.267/2010, on a reading of the Order in R.C.R.No.267/2010, it

¶78

is clear that the Appellate Authority therein has fixed rent at the rate of `800/- per month which was not interfered by this Court. Evidently, the

¶79

R.C.R.Nos.177/2013 & 178/2013

¶80

-:5:-

¶81

fixation of rent therein is based on the evidence in that case and no other

¶82

legal issues are seen discussed therein for adopting in these cases.

¶83

After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are of the

¶84

view that it cannot be said that the view taken by the Appellate Authority is

¶85

perverse warranting interference by this Court. The rent fixed is just and reasonable in the light of the importance of the locality and other factors

¶86

which have been proved in evidence by the landlord. Therefore, we

¶87

dismiss the rent control revisions confirming the orders passed by the

¶88

Appellate Authority. No costs.

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge)

¶91

Sd/-