The High Court of Kerala dismissed revision petitions and a cross objection challenging the Rent Control Appellate Authority's order fixing fair rent at Rs.4,000 per room for two rooms, finding no illegality in the findings.
Revision petitions and cross objection dismissed; Appellate Authority's judgment affirmed.
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 A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941
RCRev..No.160 of 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-12-2010 IN RCA 21/2004 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD.
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2004 IN I I.A NO.1003 OF 1999 IN RCP 26/1992 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KASARAGOD.
REVISION PETITIONER(IST RESPONDENT/IST PETITIONER :
P.A.ABDULLA, S/O ARABI BEARY, RESIDING AT UPPALA IN UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.UPPALA - 671 322.
BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN.
RESPONDENT(APPELLANT/RESPONDENT) :
1 SEKALI BEARY, (DIED) MUSLIM LANDHOLDER, RESIDING AT HOIGA HOUSE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.UPPALA - 671 322. (LEGAL HEIRS IMPIEADED AS ADDL.R2 TO R9)
*** ADDL.R2 PATHUMMA, WIDOW OF SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671322.**
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 2
BY ADVS. SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, ALONG WITH CO.47/2011, RCRev.NO.161/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941
CO.No.47 of 2011 IN RCRev.. 160/2011
CROSS OBJECTOR-RESPONDENT IN R.C.R :
SEKALI BEARY, (DIED) S/O MOIDU BEARY, MUSLIM LANDHOLDER, RESIDING AT HOIGA HOUSE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O UPPALA - 671 322.
(LRS.IMPLEADED)
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 4
BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN R.C.R :
P.A.ABDULLA, S/O ARABI BEARY, RESIDING AT UPPALA IN UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O UPPALA - 671 322.
BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN.
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev.NOS.161/2011 & 160/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941
RCRev..No.161 of 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-12-2010 IN RCA 28/2004 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD.
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2004 IN I.A NO.1003 OF 1999 IN RCP 26/1992 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KASARAGOD.
REVISION PETITIONER/ (APPELLANT/1ST PETITIONER) :
P.A. ABDULLA, S/O ARABI BEARY,
RESIDING AT UPPALA IN UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P O UPPALA - 671 322.
BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN.
RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) :
SEKALI BEARY, (DIED) S/O MOIDU BEARY, MUSLIM LANDHOLDER, RESIDING AT HOIGA HOUSE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK , PO UPPALA - 671 322.
(LEGAL HEIRS IMPIEADED AS ADDL.R2 TO R9)
*** ADDL.R2 PATHUMMA, WIDOW OF SEKHALI BEARY, RESIDING AT POYYA HOUSE, UPPALA GATE, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. UPPALA - 671 322.**
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 6
*** ADDL.RESPONDENTS 2 TO 9 BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13-03-2019 IN I.A NO.2507/2011.**
BY ADVS. SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev.NO.160/2011, CO.47/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 7
A.HARIPRASAD & SHIRCY.V, J J.
R..C.R No.160 OF 2011
&
Cross Objection No.47 OF 2011
&
R.C.R No.161 of 2011
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2019
C O M M O N O R D E R
A.HARIPRASAD, J
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
respondents.
fixation of fair rent in respect of two rooms belonging to the same landlord,
which is outstanding in his possession in tenancy right.
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 8
respondent/landlord filed an application before the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'), for permitting him to reconstruct the building. After taking evidence, the application was allowed. After reconstruction, the revision petitioner was re-inducted into two rooms, for which Rs.600/- was the rent fixed for each room.
Court fixed Rs.600/- as market rent. Aggrieved by this fixation, both the landlord and tenant took up the matter in separate appeals. The appeals
were jointly considered by the Appellate Authority and remanded the
matters to the Rent Control Court for a fresh consideration. After considering the entire matters, the Rent Control Court re-fixed the fair rent of each room at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per mensum.
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 9
per common judgment in R.C.A Nos.21 and 28 of 2004, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kasaragod considering the locational importance and
the convenience in the room, fixed the rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- for each room. This finding is challenged in these revision petitions. We have
also noticed a cross objection filed by the landlords/respondents claiming a
monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- for each room. The Rent Control Court has considered the nature of the building and importance of the locality in
which it is situated and also the amenities provided in the room. Taking
into consideration of all the matters, it fixed an amount of Rs.1,750/- per
room. According to the revision petitioner, that was on a higher side.
Landlord would contend that it is too meagre an amount, in the light of the
importance of the locality in which the building is situated. Therefore, both
sides went in appeal.
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 10
arrived at a conclusion that the claim made by the landlord for fixing the
rent at the rate of Rs.7,000/- is on a higher side. But it found that Rs.1,750/- per month for each room is highly insufficient. Therefore, after considering the entire evidence, the Appellate authority re-fixed the rent at
the rate of Rs.4,000/- per mensum for each room.
of the materials before us, we find no tangible reason to interfere with the
factual findings arrived at by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has considered all relevant matters referred to in Edger
Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1) K.L.T 767) . There is no illegality or
impropriety in the re-fixation of rent by the Appellate Authority. It has
stated valid reason for declining the prayer of fixing the monthly rent per
room at the rate of Rs.7000/- raised by the landlord.
R.C.R No.160 & 161 of 2011 11
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in
the revision petitions and cross objection. Hence, the revision petitions and
the cross objection are dismissed affirming the judgment passed by the
Rent Control Appellate Authority in these matters.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD,
JUDGE.
SHIRCY.V, JUDGE
amk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petitions and cross objection against the re-fixation of fair rent at Rs.4,000/- per room should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Edger Ferus v. Abraham IttycheriaExplained¶124
Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1) K.L.T 767)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.A. Abdulla
Sekali Beary
A. Hariprasad
Shircy V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
