In an appeal against a higher fair rent order, the High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition. Upholding the Rent Controller's findings on commercial importance and comparable rentals, the Court held facts could not be revisited under Section 20.
The Revision Petition filed by the tenant is dismissed.
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.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA,
1944
RCREV. NO. 178 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2018 IN RCA 19/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TIRUR
RCP 47/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT ,PARAPPANANGADI REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
P.K. HAMZA, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, PERUVANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, CHEGOTTUR AMSOM, THALAKKAPPU DESOM, CHAPPANANGADI (P.O.), TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SAITHALI HAJI, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM HAJI, NALAKATH HOUSE, PIN - 676 552, VADAKKUMBRAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
..2..
RCREV. NO. 178 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
This Revision Petition was filed by the
tenant aggrieved by the order fixing fair rent.
The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.19,890/-. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed. Challenging this, the revision petition was preferred.
busy commercial town in Malappuram. The plinth area of the building is 520 Sq. fts. The report
of the commissioner would clearly show the commercial importance of the area. The report
further shows that certain tenants of the
similarly situated building are paying Rs.420/per day for a building having 750 Sq. fts. plint area.
The findings on facts so rendered by the Rent
RCREV. NO. 178 OF 2018
..3..
Controller and the Appellate Authority are based on the materials placed before them. Attempt of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in invoking our power under Section 20 of the Kerala Builidings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 to revisit the findings on facts is not possible. Since the parameters that required to be followed in fixing the fair rent have been followed while fixing the fair rent, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, the Revision Petition fails. Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE
PR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Rent Controller erred in fixing the fair rent at Rs.19,890/-.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Saithali Haji
A. Muhamed Mustaque
Shoba Annamma Eapen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
