Kerala High Court
Kavitha Valappil Saina vs P.P. Bipathu on 2 December, 2022
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
R.C.REV. NO. 32 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-V, KOZHIKODE MADE IN
RCA 65/2015: FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2014 MADE BY THE
RENT CONTROL COURT/ PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOZHIKODE-I MADE IN R.C.P.
35/2012.)
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
KAITHA VALAPPIL SAINA
D/O ABDURAHIMAN, MUTHASSANKANDIYIL HOUSE, PAROPPADI
POST, MARIKUNNU, CHEVAYUR AMSOM AND DESOM,KOZHIKODE
TALUK-673 012
BY ADV SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 P.P. BIPATHU
D/O KATHIYUMMA,
2 P.P.ABOOBACKER
S/O KATHIYUMMA, *DECEASED.
3 P.P.UMMER
S/O KATHIYUMMA, LRs IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS
5 TO 7
4 P.P.UMMU SELMABI
D/O KATHIYUMMA, (ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT
PADINHARE PEEDIKAKKAL, KALLAI POST, NAGARAM AMSOM AND
DESOM, KOZHIKODE -673 003)
R.C.R.No.32 of 2017
2
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 :
5 RASIYA W/O LATE Mr.UMMER P.P.,
6 SHEENAS D/O LATE Mr.UMMER P.P.,
7 NITHIL P.P., S/O LATE Mr.UMMER P.P.,(RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7
ARE RESIDING AT 'GREENS', H.No. 1216, CHALAPPURAM,
KOZHIKODE-673 002)
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER
DATED 28.11.2017 IN I.A 2576 OF 2017
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SMT.M.SHAJNA
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R.No.32 of 2017
3
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
R.C.R.No.32 of 2017
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2022
ORDER
C.S.Sudha, J.
This R.C.R under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1965 (the Act), has been filed against the judgment dated 24/11/2016 in
R.C.A.No.65/2015 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA),
Kozhikode, which appeal has been filed against the order dated 30/08/2014 in
R.C.P.No.35/2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Kozhikode. The
revision petitioner, the appellant is the respondent-tenant in the R.C.P. The
respondents herein are the respondents in the appeal and the petitioners-landlords in
the R.C.P. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the
R.C.P.
2. R.C.P.No.35/2012 was filed by the petitioners-landlords under
Sections 5, 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. According to the petitioners, the
petition schedule room had been rented out by their predecessor-in-interest,
Kadiyumma, to the respondent on 01/10/1993 for a monthly rent of ₹400/-. The
respondent was running an STD booth in the tenanted premises. The respondent has
R.C.R.No.32 of 2017
defaulted the payment of rent from 01/11/2010. Therefore, on 09/11/2011, a
registered lawyer notice was issued to the tenant demanding the arrears of rent. In
spite of the receipt of notice, rent has not been cleared so far. That apart, for the last
more than three years the tenant has ceased to occupy the building without any
reasonable cause. Further, after 1993 there has been no enhancement of the rent in
respect of the tenanted premises. The petition schedule shop room is situated in a
prime locality in Calicut town. At present, the tenanted premises would fetch a
monthly rent of ₹2500/-. Hence the fair rent is to be fixed by enhancing the present
rent of ₹400/- to ₹2500/- per month from 01/11/2011 onwards. The petitioners
therefore sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of arrears of rent, cessation
of occupation and also claimed fixation of fair rent.
3. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations in the R.C.P.
According to the respondent, there is no arrears of rent as alleged in the petition. The
allegation that she has ceased to occupy the premises for more than three years
without reasonable cause is also incorrect and false. The claim for fixation of fair rent
also cannot be allowed as the tenanted premises remain in the same condition as it
was when it was let out about two decades back. Therefore, the respondent
contended that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of
the petitioners. The respondent examined herself as RW1. The report and plan of the
R.C.R.No.32 of 2017
advocate commissioner have been marked as Exts.C1 and C2 respectively. On a
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the RCC found that there was
no default in the payment of rent and hence the claim for eviction on the ground of
arrears of rent was rejected. However, the RCC allowed eviction under Section 11(4)
(v). On the basis of the evidence on record, the RCC also fixed the fair rent at the
rate of ₹ 2000/- per month with effect from 01/11/2011. R.C.A.No.65/2015 filed by
the respondent-tenant has been dismissed by the RCAA confirming the findings of
the RCC. Aggrieved, the respondent-tenant has come up in revision against the
concurrent findings of the RCC and the RCAA.
5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the concurrent
findings of the RCC and RCAA suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.
6. Heard Sri.Jacob Abraham, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Ms. Shajna, 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 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 an irrelevant
consideration, ignored valuable items of evidence or applied wrong principles of law.
R.C.R.No.32 of 2017
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. We went through the entire pleadings, the evidence on record as well
as the findings of both the RCC as well as the RCAA. The RCAA is seen to have
gone into the matter in detail, re-appraised the evidence, the findings and conclusion
of the RCC and concluded that the appeal is devoid of merits and hence confirmed
the order of the RCC. Both the RCC and the RCAA have considered all the aspects
of the case in detail and held that the petitioners-landlords are entitled to an order of
eviction under Section 11(4)(v) and also for fixation of fair rent. The findings
rendered by the aforesaid authorities are findings on facts. No case has been made out
that the findings rendered by the authorities suffer from any illegality, irregularity or
impropriety, warranting an interference by this Court.
In the result, the R.C.R is dismissed. Taking into account the facts and
circumstances in the case, we deem it appropriate and reasonable to grant the
respondent six months' time to vacate the tenanted premises on condition that she
files an undertaking before the RCC on or before 05/01/2023 to vacate the tenanted
premises within a period of six months from this day and on condition that the
respondent pay the arrears of rent if any, on or before 05/01/2023 and also continue
to pay the monthly rent on or before the 10th day of every succeeding month till she
R.C.R.No.32 of 2017
vacates the building.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms/30.11
