Kerala High Court

Omana vs M/S Manappuram Finance Ltd on 17 October, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

                                                2024:KER:79909
RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2023
                                 1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
                                 &
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
                    RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2023
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2023 IN RCA
NO.6 OF 2022 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH
PARAVUR, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.06.2022
IN RCP NO.21 OF 2017 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA



REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1      OMANA
           AGED 72 YEARS
           W/O LATE MATHAI, 3/558,
           NEDUNTHALLIL HOUSE, MEKKAD P.O.
           NEDUMBASSERRY VILLAGE, ALUVA, PIN - 683589

    2      ANIL MATHEW
           AGED 50 YEARS
           S/O MATHEW, ARACKAL (NEDUNTHALLIL) HOUSE,
           MEKKAD P.O. NEDUMBASSERRY VILLAGE,
           ALUVA, PIN - 683589


           BY ADVS.
           C.P.SAJI
           AHALYA PRAKASH K.V.
           V.M.SAJAN
           RIJO DOMY
                                                     2024:KER:79909
RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2023
                                  2




RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

            M/S. MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD.
            A NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
            COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
            OFFICE AT V-1104, MANAPURAM HOUSE,
            VALAPAD P.O., THRISSUR,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY PRIYALAL,
            AGED 47 YEARS, S/O GOPALAN NAIR, PIN - 680567


            BY ADVS.
            B.S.SURESH KUMAR
            ASHLEY JOHN(K/000719/2015)



     THIS    RENT   CONTROL     REVISION   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   17.10.2024,    THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                         2024:KER:79909
RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2023
                                 3




                               ORDER

Amit Rawal, J.

1. The present revision petition is directed against

the judgment dated 17.02.2023 of the Appellate Authority in

R.C.A.No.6/2022 preferred by the respondent - tenant against

the order dated 02.06.2022 of the Rent Controller in

R.C.P.No.21/2017 reducing the fair rent from Rs.40,000/-

(Rupees forty thousand only) to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty

thousand only).

2. Petitioner - landlord instituted RCP

aforementioned under Section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease

and Rent Control) Act on the premise that the premises in

question were let out to the tenant on the basis of a registered

lease deed dated 07.05.2014 for a period of five years from

12.08.2011 to 11.03.2016 on a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month. Lease deed expired

on 11.03.2016 but the respondent - tenant continued to pay

the rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand 2024:KER:79909 RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2023

only) till March, 2016, and thereafter had been paying the rent

as per the terms and condition of the lease deed at the rate

Rs.16,200/- (Rupees sixteen thousand two hundred only). In

fact, petition schedule room is situated on the first floor of two

storied commercial building complex under the name and style

"Nedunthallil building" with a carpet area of 800 sq. ft. situated

in a important locality and cross-way to the Cochin International

Airport and claimed increase in rent almost at the rate of

Rs.60/- (Rupees sixty only) to Rs.75/- (Rupees seventy five

only) per sq. ft. ie., Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)

per month. Respondent - tenant contested aforementioned

matter, denied the claim and stated that the amenities of

building are far less than the other buildings situated in the

locality by refuting rent at the rate of Rs.60/- to Rs.75/- per

sq. ft. Even the landlord had also attempted to disconnect the

water connection to the rented premises and locked the motor

shed. Rent Controller framed the following issues:

1). Whether the petitioner is entitled for the 2024:KER:79909 RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2023

fixation of fair rent as claimed in the petition?

2). If so, what would be the fair rent to be fixed ?

3). Reliefs and costs ?

3. Both the parties brought on record the following

documents:

Petitioners' Exhibits:-


       A1     03.11.1989 Gift Deed No.3268/1989 of SRO,
                         Chengamanad

       A2     10.07.2019 Cash Receipt

       A3     08.04.2019 Tax Receipt

       A4     07.05.2014 Certified copy of Lease Agreement
                         No.2286/2014         of      SRO,
                         Chengamanad

       A5     19.04.2021 Certified copy of Settlement deed
                         No.1148/2021        of       SRO,
                         Chengamanad

       A6     02.06.2017 Lawyer Notice

       A7     03.07.2017 Reply Notice

       A8     16.02.219 Order from Tahsildar, Aluva

       A9     18.01.2019 Lease   Agreement             of   SRO,
                         Chengamanad
                                                2024:KER:79909
RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2023




       A10    16.09.2019 Rent   Agreement          of     SRO,
                         Chengamanad

       A11    19.12.2019 Lease   Agreement         of     SRO,
                         Chengamanad

       A12    ----        Bank Pass Book of the Ernakulam
                          District Co-operative Bank

       Respondent's Exhibits:-

       B1     01.12.2021 Extract from the minutes of the
                         meeting.

       B2     06.12.2019 Certified copy of counter affidavit in
                         WP(C)No.25753 of 2019 of the
                         Hon'ble High Court of Kerala

       B3     -----       Form No.16A

       B4     -----       Form No.16A

       B5     -----       Form No.16A

       B6     -----       Form No.16A

       B7     -----       Form No.16A

       B8     -----       Form No.16A

       B9     -----       Form No.16A

       B10    -----       Form No.16A

       B11    -----       Form No.16A
                                                 2024:KER:79909
RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2023




       Court Exhibits

       C1      27.07.2019 Commission Report by Adv.Shaju
                          M.S.


       PW1     04.03.2022 Anil Mathew

       PW2     04.03.2022 Shibu

       PW3     04.03.2022 Albin

       PW4     04.03.2022 Adv.Shaju M.S.

       Respondent's Witness

       RW1     09.03.2022 Vijayakumar

       Court Witness      Nil

Learned Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence, particularly

Ext.A10, fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees

forty thousand only) per month. However, in appeal preferred it

has been reduced to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only).

5. Sri.Saji. C.P., learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner-landlord submitted that the Appellate

Authority committed illegality in reducing the amount on the

basis of surmises and conjectures as there is no direct or 2024:KER:79909 RCREV. NO. 118 OF 2023

concrete evidence to reduce the rate of rent. Even by looking at

Ext.A10, the rent of the building was much more than the one

claimed and assessed by the Rent Controller. Moreover, the

respondent - tenant has vacated the premises and petitioner -

landlord has filed a suit claiming the arrears of rent at the rate

of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only).

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent - tenant do not deny the vacation of the premises

and submitted that the revision petition would not be

maintainable as petitioner filed another suit claiming same very

amount or otherwise the suit would not be maintainable for

which legal objection would be taken at appropriate time and

stage.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that since

the petitioner - landlord has already claimed rent from the due