Allowed
Jamal Vallil, v. the Assistant Engineer
Kerala HCRCRev./150/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1946
RCREV. NO. 150 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2021 IN RCA NO.1 OF 2021 OF
ARENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ ADDITIONAL DISTRICTJUDGE,
VADAKARA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2020 IN RCP
NO.5 OF 2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
JAMAL VALLIL,
S/O.AMMED HAJI, AGED 56 YEARS
VALLIL HOUSE, P.O. ADUKKATH, KUTTIADI VIA,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT – 673508.
BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:
1THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
ELECTRICAL SECTION THOTTILPALAM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT – 673513.
2THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION,
NADAPURAM COURT ROAD, P.O. KALLACHI,
KOZHIKODE - 673 506.
BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR
SRI NIRMAL S SC KSEB
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NO. 150 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
3
RCREV. NO. 150 OF 2022
of Rs.83,000/- (Rupees eighty three thousand only) on 12.04.2017. Respondent-tenant objected to the
aforementioned claim on the premise that though the premises was taken by the Kerala State Electricity Board, there was no facility of electricity, in other words, it was lacking amenities. Noticing all the contentions, learned Rent Controller assessed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.30,000/(Rupees thirty thousand only) per month with effect from the date of filing of the rent petition ie., 15.01.2018. Landlord was satisfied with the aforementioned finding but the tenant challenged the same in the aforementioned R.C.A.No.1/2021.
the evidence, oral and documentary, noticed that though the landlord had examined the signatory to the lease deed Ext.A1 but the said room had more facilities than the scheduled rooms and reduced the rate of rent as assessed by the Rent Controller from Rs.15/- per sq.ft. to Rs.12/- sq.ft. It is the said order which is under challenge on behalf of the petitioner-landlord.
4
RCREV. NO. 150 OF 2022
5
RCREV. NO. 150 OF 2022
the behest of the landlord. Therefore, the landlord cannot be permitted to lay the challenge in the manner and mode. In fact, the amount assessed by the Rent Controller was not according to the claim set up in the rent petition. Tenant has already handed over the possession of the tenanted premises with effect from 11.06.2019 and thus at the best, the arrears of rent as assessed by the Appellate Authority would be of eighteen(18) months. They are willing to deposit the rent as assessed by the Appellate Authority.
and appraised the paper book and of the view that the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority are not supported by any documentary or oral evidence as the respondent-tenant failed to place on record any evidence to belie the claim of the landlord with regard to the rate of rent at Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) fixed in 2017 in respect of premises measuring 900 sq. ft. let out to Consumer Fed and now increased to Rs.83,000/- (Rupees eighty three thousand only) whereas the area in occupation
6
RCREV. NO. 150 OF 2022
of the respondent-tenant was 2240 sq. ft., more than double area and the earlier rent fixed in 2002 as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and later on increased to Rs.10058/(Rupees ten thousand fifty eight only), in our considered view, was required to be enhanced as per the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The decisions have to be arrived at on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. For proving the contents of Ext.A1 lease deed in respect of the premises let out to the Consumer Fed, PW2, the signatory of the lease deed was examined and also placed on record a letter Ext.A2 showing the payment of rent after being increased at the rate of Rs.83,000/- (Rupees eighty three thousand only) per month.
7
RCREV. NO. 150 OF 2022
the present revision petition is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority dated 12.11.2021 rendered in R.C.A.No.1/2021 modifying the order of the Rent Controller
is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller is restored with a modification that there shall be direction to the respondent – tenant to clear the arrears of rent for a period of eighteen (18) months at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. ft., of the premises measuring 2244 sq. ft. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. In case of non-clearance, it shall entail into interest at the rate of 12% if not already made or the payment, if any, made at a lesser rate shall be adjusted.
Revision stands disposed off.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
nak
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Authority's reduction of fair rent from Rs.15 to Rs.12 per sq. ft. was supported by evidence.
What fair rent should be assessed for the KSEB-occupied premises under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jamal Vallil
The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board
The Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board
Amit Rawal
Easwaran S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court