The High Court of Kerala revised the order fixing fair rent. It confirmed the monthly rent of Rs.8,000 fixed by the appellate authority but set aside the direction for a 10% annual increase, fixing instead a 15% increase every three years.
Monthly rent at Rs.8,000 with an increase of 15% once in every three years.
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
TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 23/2014 DATED 16-12-2015 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT -I ,KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 64/2016 DATED 20-10-2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
1 M/S. K.V. ASSOCIATES DOOR NO. 12/1047, VALIYANGADI NARARAM AMSOM DESOM,CALICUT (PO), KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.V.USMAN KOYA, S/O. UMMER KOYA
2 P.V.USMAN KOYA, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O UMMER KOYA MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. K.V.ASSOCIATES, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM,CALICUT (PO), KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.ANOOP
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
C.A.AMINABI AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. ABDURAHIMAN KOYA, 14/370 A, PONNARAKKAL, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOMKALLAI (PO), KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.P.AMBIKA R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.THOMAS ALIAS
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
2
ORDER
Dias,J.
The appellants in RCA No.64/2016 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode are the revision petitioners in this revision petition. The respondent in the appeal is the respondent herein.
2. The respondent had filed RCP
23/2014 seeking fixation of fair rent for the tenanted premises that was leased to the appellants.
3. It was the case of the respondent before the Rent Control Court, that her predecessor in interest had leased out the building to the revision petitioners by a lease agreement dated 6.8.1992. The
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
3
monthly rent was then fixed at Rs.700/In the year 1998, the respondent purchased the premises and attorned to the tenancy. After periodical
enhancements in the rent, the rent on the date of the rent control petition was Rs.931.70. According to her, the petition scheduled premises are in the heart of the Calicut city where many important retail and wholesale commercial business are being conducted. The commercial importance of the area has increased many
fold. Therefore, she sought for fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs.24,750/per month with future enhancement at the rate of 10% per annum.
4. The Rent Control Petition was
stoutly opposed by the revision petitioners who filed a counter
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
4
statement, inter alia, contending that the rent was re-fixed in the year 1992 and they have been promptly paying rent to the respondent as well as her predecessor in interest. The revision petitioners are willing for enhancement of rent as per the agreement. The area is not commercially important as alleged in the rent control petition. They also contended that they were facing the threat of closure of the business, and the rent claimed by the respondent was extortionate and unreasonable. The revision petitioners further contended that a nearby room that was leased out to Sri.A.K.Ali was for a rent of Rs.150/- per month. Hence they sought for dismissal of the rent control petition.
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
5
5. PW1 and and PW2 were examined
and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the
side of the respondents. The 2nd appellant was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 series were marked through her. The Advocate Commissioner's report was marked as
Ext.C1 series.
6. The Rent Control Court after considering the pleadings, the evidence
on record, the commissioner's report and
the law laid down by this Court in Edger
Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria [2004(1)
KLT 767] fixed Rs.10,000/- per month as the fair rent for the petition scheduled premises, from the date of petition, with 10% annual increase.
7. Assailing the order passed by the
Rent Control Court, the revision petitioners preferred RCA No.64/2016
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
6
before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The revision petitioners reiterated their stand before the Rent Control Court and contended that the order passed by the Rent Control Court was erroneous because the fair rent fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month was
extortionate.
8. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after considering the
materials on record and after following the guidelines declared by this Court in
Edger Ferus (supra) came to the conclusion that Rs.8000/- per month would be reasonable as fair rent. Accordingly, the order passed by the Rent Control Court was modified and the fair rent was fixed at Rs.8000/- per month. The cross-objection that was filed by
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
7
the respondent was also dismissed.
9. It is assailing the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority that
the present revision is filed.
10. Heard Adv.Anoop P.V for the
revision petitioners and Adv.P.K.Ibrahim for the respondent.
11. The counsel on both sides
reiterated the contentions raised before the courts below. However, during the course of argument, the counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the revision petitioners were ready to pay rent at the rate of Rs.8000/- per month for the petition scheduled premises, but were only aggrieved by the direction of
the Rent Control Court fixing the escalation of rent at 10% per annum
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
8
which was unreasonable and unjust. It is pointed out that the judgment of Rent Control Appellate Authority is silent on the percentage of periodical increase of rent and, therefore, the unconscionable rate of 10% per annum fixed by the Rent Control Court may be modified and that said direction in the impugned order is against the parameters laid down in Edger Ferus (supra) .
12. Having considered the pleadings, evidence and the parameters laid down in
Edger Ferus (supra) and also Sree Kumaran Nair v. Ponnuswami Chettiar [2010 (3) KLT 444] taking into consideration the fact that the revision petitioners are ready and willing to pay rent as fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority from the date of the rent
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
9
control petition, and further that they are limiting the relief only to extent of escalation of periodical rent, we feel that the periodical increase of rent can be modified and fixed at 15% for every three years i.e. an escalation of 5% per annum, which according to us would be reasonable and just.
In the result, the revision petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority fixing the monthly rent at Rs.8000/- is confirmed. (ii) The order of the Rent Control Court to annually increase the rent by 10% is set aside.
(iii) The revision petitioners shall pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.8000/with an increase of 15% on the rent once
RCRev..No.143 OF 2018
10
in every three years.
(iv) The parties are directed
to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE
ma/2/12/2019
Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
/True copy/ P.S to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the periodical increase of rent fixed at 10% per annum is unreasonable and needs modification.
Whether the fair rent fixed by the appellate authority should be confirmed or modified.
Whether the escalation of rent should be fixed at 15% every three years instead of 10% per annum.
M/s. K.V. Associates / P.V. Usman Koya
C. Aminabi
K. Harilal
C. S. Dias
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
