Ali vs Beeran Haji
2022 Latest Caselaw 11501 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 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                      RCREV. NO. 127 OF 2018
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 31/1/2018 IN RCA 32/2016 ON THE FILE OF
  RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT),
                              TIRUR
  AGAINST THE ORDER DTD 31.7.2015 IN RCP 31/2015 BEFORE THE RENT
               CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF COURT), TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

          ALI,
          S/O. BAVU HAJI, KUNDANI HOUSE,
          B.P.ANGADI (P O), PIN - 676 102,
          TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
          MALABAR FURNITURE, ZEENATH COMPLEX,
          NEAR VISUAS THEATRE, B.P.ANGADI, TIRUR.
          BY ADVS.SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
          SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

          BEERAN HAJI, S/O.MOIDEEN,
          VELLARIKKAT HOUSE,
          THALAKKAD AMSOM DESOM, PIN-676 103,
          TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
          BY ADV SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN



     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 09.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                         2
R.C.R.No.127 of 2018



                P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
                  --------------------------------------------------
                            R.C.R.No.127 of 2018
                    -------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 9th day of December, 2022


                                  ORDER

C.S.Sudha, J.

This rent control revision filed under Section 20 of the Kerala

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) has been filed

against the judgment dated 31/01/2018 in R.C.A.No.32/2016 on the file of

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

the order dated 31/07/2015 in R.C.P.No.31/2015 on the file of the Rent

Control Court (RCC), Tirur. The revision petitioner herein is the appellant in

the appeal and the respondent in the R.C.P. The respondent herein is the

respondent in the appeal and the petitioner in the R.C.P. The parties and

documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.

2. R.C.P.No.31/2015 was filed by the petitioner-landlord under

Section 5 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. According to the petitioner, he

is the owner of the petition schedule room which has been let out to the

respondent for a monthly rent of ₹11,500/-. The building housing the

petition schedule room is situated in a commercially important area. The

R.C.R.No.127 of 2018

market value of the property per cent is ₹25,000/- in the locality. The total

area of the tenanted premises is 3,800 sq.ft. The rent of similar and similarly

situated rooms in the locality is ₹50-60/- per sq.ft. However the respondent

is paying rent only @ ₹3/- per sq.ft. The market value of the property at the

time of entrustment was ₹50,000/-. It has now gone up to ₹25,00,000/- per

cent. The petitioner has spent about ₹20,00,000/- for the renovation of the

petition schedule building. Hence the petition for fixation of fair rent.

3. Though the respondent entered appearance, no counter or

objection was filed by him. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and

Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Exts.C1 and C2

were also marked.

4. The RCC on an appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence and after hearing the parties, allowed the R.C.P. and fixed the fair

rent of the petition schedule room at ₹23,000/- per month from the date of

petition with an enhancement at the rate of 10% every three years. In

R.C.A.No.32/2016, filed by the respondent-tenant, the order of the RCC has

been confirmed. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the RCC and the

RCAA, the present revision has been filed by the respondent-tenant.

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

concurrent findings of the RCC or the RCAA suffer from any illegality,

R.C.R.No.127 of 2018

irregularity or impropriety.

6. Heard Adv.Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Adv.Deepa Narayanan, the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The scope of interference by the revisional court under Section

20 of the Act is restricted to cases where the RCC or RCAA has relied on an

irrelevant consideration, ignored valuable items of evidence or applied

wrong principles of law. The power of revision is limited to making a

scrutiny of the records to satisfy itself as to the three tests laid down in

Section 20. The revisional court cannot convert itself into an evidence

collecting or fact finding court.

8. It is even without filing a counter to the R.C.P. or adducing any

evidence, the appeal and the present revision has been filed by the

respondent-tenant. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that

there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the concurrent findings

of the RCC and the RCAA. Both the RCC and the RCAA have considered

all the aspects of the case in detail and held that the petitioner is entitled to

fixation of fair rent at the rate fixed by the RCC. The findings rendered by

the aforesaid courts are findings on fact. As there is no illegality, irregularity

or impropriety in the impugned judgment, we find no reasons to interfere

with the same.

R.C.R.No.127 of 2018

In the result, the RCR is dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA JUDGE ami/