Dismissed

Hariram v. C.R. Sugunan

Kerala HC4 Aug 2023RCRev./56/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this rent control revision, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the tenant's appeal against the fair rent fixation. Upholding the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority decisions, the Court found the commercial locality valid and lawful application of rental principles.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order fixing fair rent affirmed.

Hariram Vs C.R. Sugunan — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶7

RCREV. NO. 56 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT RCA 1/2022 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELALTE AUTHORITY(DISTRICT JUDGE), ALAPPUZHA RCP 24/2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶10

HARIRAM,AGED 55 YEARS S/O HARIDAS, IDIKKOMBIL, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. PROPRIETOR, YUVARANI BAKERY, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688524

¶11

BY ADVS. C.Y.VINOD KUMAR C.S.HEMALAL

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶13

1 C.R. SUGUNAN, CHOOZHATTU HOUSE, VETTAKKAL P.O., PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688529

¶14

2 AMMINI M.K., W/O C.R. SUGUNAN, CHOOZHATTU HOUSE, VETTAKKAL P.O., PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688529

¶15

BY ADVS. JESSY S.SALIM SINDHU SANTHALINGAM(K/353/1997) A.D.SHAJAN(K/19/1997)

¶16

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

RCR 56 of 2023

¶18

¶19

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ

¶20

................................................................................

¶21

RC Rev.No.56 of 2023

¶22

...................................................

¶23

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Mohammed Nias.C.P..J

¶26

The tenant is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority affirming the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court under Section 5 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), 1965.

¶27

The landlords/respondents herein filed the application contending that the rent for the petition schedule shop room was Rs.800/- and that it was in arrears from July 2016. It was contended that the shop room is situated in a prime location in Cherthala Town, a commercially potential area with hundreds of shops and commercial establishments in the locality. It was further alleged that the land value of the locality is around Rs.20 lakh per cent and that a similar room would fetch a monthly rent of Rs.16,000/-. The tenant is using the petition scheduled shop room for commercial purposes conducting a bakery and cool bar, which is a very lucrative and profitable business due to the locational advantage. It is

¶28

RCR 56 of 2023

¶29

¶30

contended that the present rate of rent in the locality varies from Rs.60-80 per sq. ft. and if the rent is calculated at Rs.40/- per sq. ft., the rent of the petition schedule shop room will come to Rs.8000/- and on these grounds the landlords prayed for fixation of fair rent.

¶31

The tenant resisted the petition contending that an earlier RCP No. 17 of 2004 was filed, in which a compromise was arrived at between the parties, and the rent was enhanced to Rs.800/- per month. It is also stated that the petition scheduled shop-room has no parking facility and that the petition scheduled shop-room is situated in a commercially less important area and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

The trial court, after examining PWs 1 to 4 and marking A1 to A7 and Ext.X1 as well as the tenant was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 and B2, found that the shop in question lies in an important locality at Cherthala Town on the side of the main road and almost opposite to KSRTC bus stand. The trial court also considered the principles of law stated in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Itticheria [(2004) 1 KLT 767], which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Extracting the principles in the said judgment and considering the facts of the case, including the Commission Report and examination of the Commission, it found that a shop room in the vicinity fetched a rent of 24,181/- for almost an equivalent area. It also found that compared to the said room, 1/3rd of the same, namely Rs.8000/- will be the fair rent payable considering that the other shop

¶33

RCR 56 of 2023

¶34

¶35

room was air-conditioned and had a parking area as well. The tenant filed an appeal against the said judgment in which the findings of the trial court were affirmed after considering the evidence on record the principles laid down in Edger Ferus (supra) as well as the decision in reported in Issac Nainan v. State of Kerala [1995(2)KLT 848]. The said order is challenged in revision before us.

¶36

We have heard Sri.C.Y.Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as Smt. Sindhu Santhalingam, the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

Learned counsel for the tenant contended that the comparison of the petition schedule shop-room with that of the jewellery, which was taken on auction by the tenant therein, was improper as the said building is air-conditioned and has a sufficient parking area. The business carried on there was a jewellary. We cannot accept this contention as the courts below did not accept the same rate of rent though the area was almost similar and had only taken 1/3rd of the rent of the said building. According to us, this was proper, and the courts below cannot be faulted for adopting the said figure. Apart from that, we have also seen that the Commissioner Report and the evidence of the Commissioner clearly proved the existence of institutions like the KSRTC bus stand, District Co-operative Bank, Punjab National Bank, KSFE, Union Bank of India, Neethi Medical Store, Muthoot Jewellery, Gentleman Chit Funds, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary

¶38

RCR 56 of 2023

¶39

¶40

School, Indian Coffee House, Aryas Hotel, Palm Fibre Complex, Onion Food Mall, and other shops are situated near the petition schedule shop room, thus proving the area to be a commercially potential one. The court below had also followed the principles in Edger Ferus and Issac Nainan (supra) apart from appreciating the evidence let in both oral and documentary. We do not find the impugned order to be one which is either illegal, irregular, or improper warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act. Resultantly, the revision fails, and the same is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶42

Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

dlk 5.8.2023

RCR 56 of 2023

APPENDIX OF RCREV. 56/2023

¶47

PETITIONER's ANNEXURES

¶48

Annexure 1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2023 IN RCP NO. 25/18 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA

Hariram v. C.R. Sugunan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariram v. C.R. Sugunan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seena Vs K.V. Manikkuttan

Malabar Food Stuff Company Vs D.Vijayalakshmi

DM Education & Research Foundation, Vs the State of Kerala

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd.

M.M. Thomas, Vs A.K. Rajagopalan

Nisha Kumari S, Vs Sreelatha S.L.