Noor Mohammed vs N.Abdul Muthalif (Died)
2022 Latest Caselaw 11198 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                &
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
   FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                      RCREV. NO. 119 OF 2015
 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN RCA NO.68 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF
THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-I,
PALAKKAD CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCP NO.81 OF 2010 AND
RCP.NO.80 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE RCC ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,
                             PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

          NOOR MOHAMMED
          AGED 68 YEARS
          S/O. LATE N.MUTHU RAWTHER,
          DOOR NO. 11/1141(8), T.B. ROAD,
          KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD
          BY ADV SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

    1     N.ABDUL MUTHALIF (DIED)
          S/O. LATE M.A. NOOR MUHAMMED RAWTHER,
          M.A LANE, NEAR T.B ROAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD
    2     MUSTIRI BEEGAM
          AGED 71 YEARS
          W/O. LATE ABDUL MUTHALIF M.A N.R HOUSE, MA LANE, NEAR
          T.B ROAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD
    3     A. NOORMUHAMMED
          AGED 50 YEARS
          S/O. LATE ABDUL MUTHALIF M.A. N.R. HOUSE, M.A. LANE,
          NEAR T.B. ROAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD
    4     A. SADIK AHAMMED
          AGED 48 YEARS
          S/O. LATE M.A. NOOR MUHAMMED RAWTHER, M.A LANE, NEAR
          T.B ROAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD
    5     A. SURAYYA PHARVIN, AGED 51 YEARS
          D/O. LATE ABDUL MUTHALIF,M.A. N.R. HOUSE, M.A.LANE,
          NEAR T.B. ROAD. KOPPAM,PALAKKAD
     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.C.R.No.119 of 2015

                                             2




                   P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
                      --------------------------------------------------
                                R.C.R.No.119 of 2015
                        -------------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2022


                                       ORDER

C.S.Sudha, J.

This Rent Control Revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings

(Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) has been filed against the common

judgment dated 16/12/2014 in R.C.A.No. 68/2011 on the file of the Rent

Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Palakkad, which appeal is against the

common order dated 30/09/2011 in R.C.P.No.80/2010 and 81/2010 on the file

of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Palakkad. The revision petitioner is the

appellant and the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.81/2010. The respondents

herein are the respondents in the aforesaid appeal and the legal representatives

of the sole petitioner-landlord in the R.C.Ps.

2. R.C.P.No.80/2010 and 81/2010 were filed by the petitioner-

landlord seeking fixation of fair rent under section 5 of the Act. In both the

R.C.Ps the petitioner-landlord alleged that the rooms let out to the respondent- R.C.R.No.119 of 2015

tenants are situated in T.B. Road, Palakkad, a commercially important area.

There are several establishments in and around the petition schedule building.

The monthly rent of ₹200/- being paid in R.C.P.No. 80/2010 and monthly rent

of ₹300/- being paid by the tenant in R.C.P.No.81/2010 are quite low.

Therefore, taking into account the importance of the locality in which the

schedule rooms are situated, the petitioner claimed that the rent at the rate of

₹5,000/- per month be fixed in R.C.P.No.80/2010 and monthly rent at the rate

of ₹10,000/- be fixed for the tenanted premise in R.C.P.No.81/2010. The area

of the tenanted premises in R.C.P.No.80/2010 and 81/2010 are 100 sq.ft. and

250 sq.ft. respectively.

3. The respondents in the aforesaid R.C.Ps filed counter denying the

allegations of the petitioner. According to them the rent presently being paid is

quite reasonable and there is absolutely no necessity for enhancing the rent or

fixing the fair rent at the rate claimed by the petitioner.

4. Both the R.C.Ps were jointly tried by the RCC. PW1 was examined

and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The report and

plan of the advocate commissioner have been marked as Exts.C1 to C3(a). No

oral or documentary evidence was adduced by respondents-tenants. The RCC

on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, fixed the fair rent of R.C.R.No.119 of 2015

the tenanted premises in R.C.P.No.80/2010 at the rate of ₹1500/- per month and

₹4800/- per month for the tenanted premise in R.C.P.No.81/2010. The RCC

also held that the petitioner is entitled to get annual revision at the rate of 7.5%.

Aggrieved by the order of the RCC, both the petitioner as well as the

respondents filed appeals. The respondents in R.C.P.No.80/2011 and 81/2011

filed R.C.A.No. 67/2011 and 68/2011 respectively. The petitioner-landlord filed

R.C.A.No.69/2011 and R.C.A.No.70/2011. The RCAA by the impugned

judgment dismissed R.C.A.No.69/2011 and 70/2011. R.C.A.No. 67/2011 and

R.C.A.No.68/2011 have been partly allowed and the order of the RCC allowing

periodical enhancement at the rate of 7.5% has been reduced to 5% per year.

Aggrieved, the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.81/2010, that is, the appellant in

R.C.A.No.68/2011 has come up in revision.

5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the findings

of the RCC and RCAA suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

6. Heard Ms.Meena.A, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

and Sri.Nirmal.S, the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Section 20 of the Act allows the aggrieved party to challenge the

legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceeding of an appellate

authority. The power of revision is limited to make a scrutiny of the records to R.C.R.No.119 of 2015

satisfy itself as to the three tests laid down in Section 20 of the Act. It cannot

convert itself into an evidence collecting or fact finding court. The scope of

interference by the revisional court is restricted to cases where the RCC or

RCAA have relied on irrelevant consideration, ignored valuable items of

evidence or applied wrong principles of law. Therefore, where there is no

illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders of the RCC or the RCAA,

there is no justification for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under

Section 20 of the Act.

8. On going through the pleadings, evidence and the findings of the

RCC as well as the RCAA, we find that both the authorities have considered

all the aspects of the case in detail. In appeal, the RCAA is seen to have gone

in to the matter in detail, re-appraised the evidence, findings and conclusion of

the RCC and has partly modified the order of the RCC. As rightly held by the

RCAA, no justification is seen given by the RCC in granting 7.5% annual

increase of rent and so the order to that aspect was interfered with and the same

has been reduced to 5% per year. The respondent has not been able to show

that the findings rendered by the RCAA suffer from any illegality, irregularity

or impropriety warranting an interference by this Court. Hence, we do not find

any ground(s) to interfere with the impugned judgment of the RCAA. R.C.R.No.119 of 2015

In the result, the R.C.R is found to be without any merits and hence

dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA JUDGE

Jms/30.11