Tenants challenged enhancement of rent from 1500 to 2460 based on lease deed provisions and inflation. Court upheld enhancement, relying on bank interest rates and judicial notice of inflation, dismissing the petition.
Rent enhanced to 2460 per month from the date of the petition onwards.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/29TH KARTHIKA, 1941
RCRev..No.128 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 IN RCA 35/2017 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 IN RCP 38/2015 OF RENT CONTROL COURT(ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT I,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
N.PRASANNA,AGED 63 YEARS,W/O.MOOTHARAN, RROM NO.6/486 B,P.G.COMPLEX,3RD FLOOR, BANK ROAD,KALAHINKUNNU AMSOM,DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 M/S.P.G.COMPLEX,P.G.COMPLEX, BANK ROAD,KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM,DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE-679 6635, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.M.ABDUL NAZEER,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA,RESIDING AT 'FILED HOUSE', KUTTIYADI AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 508.
2 P.M.ABDUL NAZEER,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA,RESIDING AT 'FILED HOUSE', KUTTIYADI AMSOM DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE – 673 508.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.V.B.SANTHINI
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R. No.128/2019
2
ORDER
K. Harilal, J.
The revision petitioner herein is the tenant, against whom, an order, enhancing the rent from 1500/- to 2460/-, was passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. According to the revision petitioner, the tenanted premises, having an area of 140sq. feet situated in the third floor of the building was entrusted with the respondents as per Ext.A1 lease deed, for a monthly rent of 900/-. Thus, the tenancy has commenced under Ext.A1, in the year 1998 and thereafter there was no enhancement in the rate of rent, even though there is a provision in Ext.A1, for periodical enhancement of the rent at the rate of 15% per every three year. No enhancement has been made so far in the rate of rent. The revision petitioner is still paying 900/per month as rent originally fixed vide Ext.A1 despite the long lapse of two decades. Considering
R.C.R. No.128/2019
3
the rate of rent of the other buildings in the same locality, the present rate of rent is very low. The respondents claimed rent at the rate of `5000/- per month.
R.C.R. No.128/2019
4
as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B9, the Rent Control Court fixed rent at the rate of 1500/- per month. In appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority enhanced the rent to 2460/- per month. The findings, whereby the appellate authority enhanced the rent from 1,500/- to 2460/- are under challenge in this revision petition.
petitioner.
1500/- to 2460/-, are legally unsustainable in the absence of any other evidence to prove the prevailing rent in the locality. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the findings, whereby the Rent Control Appellate AuthorityR.C.R. No.128/2019
5
enhanced the rent from 1500/- to 2460/-. The findings whereby the rent enhancement made are as follows:
“Apart from production Exts.A3, A4 and oral evidence in the form of ipsi dixit of PW1, nothing more was done to prove the claimed rate of fair rent. However, to resolve the issue it would appear to me that rate of interest at which loans are lend by banks would be a dependable yardstick. Presently rate of lending by nationalised bank is 10% and above with regard to commercial transactions. Taking 10% as the rate of interest, it could be seen that a sum of Rs.900/- deposited in 1998 would earn interest of Rs.1560/- by 17 years. Total, inclusive of principal would come to Rs.2,460/-. Therefore, this court is of the view that enhancement ought to have been @Rs.2,460/- per month at least from the date of petition onwards, providing for periodical increase at the rates mentioned in Ext.A1 lease deed. To answer the point I would summarise the findings as hereunder”
6. Going by the impugned judgment, we find
R.C.R. No.128/2019
6
that the tenancy has commenced in the year 1998 at the rate of 900/- per month and thereafter there was no revision of rent, despite the long lapse of 20 years. The area of the building is not disputed. Though, the petitioner has produced Exts.A3 and A4, the same has not been taken into account for fixing the rent, for the sole reason that the amenities available in the tenanted premises under Exts.A3 and A4 were not assessed by deputing a Commission and no evidence was forthcoming to prove the similarity of the petition schedule building with the tenanted premises in Exts. A3 and A4. But Exts.A3 and A4 shows, rent at the rate of 3,000/- per month. In order to prove the claim for enhancement of rent the 2nd respondent was examined as PW1 and he has testified the need for enhancement of rent, in view of the subsequent development in the locality and inflation that
R.C.R. No.128/2019
7
resulted reduction in the purchasing power of
money, variation of cost of living index and rate of rent of similarly situated buildings in the locality. But, nothing has been brought out to discredit his oral evidence and his evidence is supported by increase in the rate of interest during the last more than 17 years. According to the appellate authority, the increase in the lending rate, by nationalised bank at 10% and above with regard to commercial transaction can be taken into account for fixing their rent, in the absence of any other material to prove the claim for enhancement of rent.
R.C.R. No.128/2019
8
money, variation in the cost of living index in the
area since commencement of the lease, demand for accommodation and availability of the buildings in the locality, prevailing rent in the locality for similar accommodation can be taken into account, while determining fair rent.
R.C.R. No.128/2019
9
money value for the last more than two decades. We do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid reasoning, whereby rent stands
enhanced from 900/- to 2,460/-, for 20 years.
The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE
Sd/- C.S. DIAS JUDGE
ncd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority committed any illegality or impropriety in enhancing the rent from 1500 to 2460.
Whether judicial notice can be taken of inflation and bank lending rates to determine fair rent without specific evidence of comparable rents.
Whether the interests of the tenant as a salaried/tailoring household justify refusing a rent enhancement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Edger Ferus v. Abraham IttucheriaFollowed¶49
Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittucheria [2004 (1) KLT 767]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Prasanna
P.G. Complex
P.M. Abdul Nazeer
K. Harilal
C.S. Dias
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. Harilal and C.S. Dias
Parties & counsel