Kerala High Court
Sampushta Kuries Pvt.Ltd vs N.S.S.Karayogam on 21 July, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
R.C. Rev. No. 166/2025 :1:
2025:KER:54156
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
R.C. REV. NO. 166 OF 2025
JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2020 IN RCA NO.53 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IRINJALAKUDA
ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 IN RCP No. 43 OF 2012 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,
IRINJALAKUDA
REVISION PETITIONER:
SAMPUSHTA KURIES (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRAMAN,
ROOM NOS.1/305-B, KUNDUKAVU THEKKE NADA GOPURAM COMPLEX,
AMBALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680
302.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENT:
N.S.S.KARAYOGAM, REG.NO.3222, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
AMBALLUR, ALAGAPPA NAGAR POST, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680 302.
BY ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C. Rev. No. 166/2025 :2:
2025:KER:54156
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
R.C. Rev. No. 166 of 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
ORDER
Johnson John, J.
The tenant is the revision petitioner. Against the order in RCP No.
43 of 2012, the landlord filed RCA No. 53 of 2019 and the tenant filed
R.C.A No. 85 of 2019 and as per the common order under challenge, the
appellate authority enhanced the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control
Court to Rs.12/- per square feet for the rooms in the ground floor and
Rs.8/- per square feet for the rooms in the first floor and Rs.5/- per
square feet for the rooms in the second floor with 7.5% annual
periodical enhancement from the date of rent control petition.
2. A three storied building owned by NSS Karayogam, Amballoor
having more than 60 rooms is in the occupation of different tenants. The
Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the evidence in extenso,
taking note of the criteria laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria [2004 (1) KLT 767] for fixing the
fair rent and therefore, we find no reason to upset the factual findings
made on evidence by invoking the revisional power.
3. However, we find merit in the argument of the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner that the appellate authority awarded 7.5%
2025:KER:54156
annual periodical enhancement from the date of the Rent Control
Petition and the same is against the guidelines of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan
[(2011) 7 SCC 755] and the decision of this Court in Prasanth (Dr.) v.
NSS Karayogam [2022 KHC OnLine 1041]. As per the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad (supra), one of the
guidelines for fixing the fair rent is enhancement at the rate of 10%
every three years. In Prasanth (Dr.) (supra), this Court held as
follows:
"9. Though, the party's rights and obligations are normally
determined with reference to the date of petition, it is not
necessary that the court should follow the above rule invariably in
all cases. The obligations of the tenants to pay the rent would arise
only when the rent is determined by the Rent Control Court. The
fair rent fixation by the Rent Control Court casts obligations on
the tenants from the date on which Court decides. Normally the
rate of rent is fixed by a contract. Through the process of law fair
rent is fixed, in the place of contract. In that process, the Court
cannot make a tenant to pay the rent by creating obligation with
retrospective date which would render tenancy itself at stake. The
delay in court process cannot result in a wrong to the tenants,
especially no one has pointed out that the delay was occasioned
by the tenants themselves. ..."
4. The Rent Control Petition was filed in the year 2012 and in the
absence of satisfactory material to show that the delay was occasioned
2025:KER:54156
by the tenants themselves, we are of the view that the landlord can
claim rent at the rate of the fair rent fixed by the appellate authority
only from the date of the order passed by the Rent Control Court with
periodical enhancement at the rate of 10% at every three years. We
accordingly allow this revision petition as follows:
(i) We affirm the order fixing the fair rent of the appellate
authority.
(ii) We modify the impugned order of the appellate authority
allowing enhancement only on every three years reckoning from
the date of orders of the Rent Control Petition at 10% of the
existing rate at the time of enhancement.
(iii) We also modify the fixation of fair rent from the date of
petition and allow the landlord to claim the rent only from the
date of order of the Rent Control Court.
sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
JUDGE.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
