IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 RCRev..No. 38 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.172/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.261/2004 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/LANDLORD ---------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.SOOPI HAJI, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT/TENANT -------------------------------- K.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, EMPLOYEE AT CHOVVA CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILL, LINE BUILDING, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.CP-1/537, VALIYANNUR, P.O.VARAM, KANNUR DT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 38 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 3 rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is in revision. He sought to evict the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent alleging that the contract rent to begin with was Rs.200/-, had been enhanced to Rs.350/- and that the rent at the enhanced rate was not paid by the tenant despite notice. 2. The Rent Control Court, on evaluating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the tenant was a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. However, that court did not accept the landlord's case that the rent which begin with was Rs.200/- per month was enhanced to Rs.350/- per month. However, on the basis of the finding that the tenant is a defaulter, order of eviction was passed under section 11(2)(b). 3. The landlord, being aggrieved by the Rent Control Court's finding that the rent was not enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.350/-, preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. That Authority by the judgment impugned in this RCR.No.38 of 2010 2 revision has dismissed the appeal. 4. Smt.Lakshmi Rajan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addresses us very extensively on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. She drew our attention to Exts.A2, A9, A10 , which are all counter foils of the rent receipts issued to the tenant. Exts.A2, A9 and A10 certainly indicate that the monthly rent is Rs.350/-. But, as rightly noticed by the Rent Control Court the writings on Exts.A2, A9 and A10 are all of the landlord's only and there is nothing on these three documents to indicate that the tenant has accepted the enhancement of rent to Rs.350/- by the landlord. In this revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we are not expected normally to reappraise the evidence and substitute our conclusions for the conclusions of fact arrived at by the fact finding authorities under the statute. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which is the final court on facts under the statutory scheme, we find that the finding of that Authority that the rent was not enhanced to Rs.350/- is founded on evidence. May be the landlord revision petitioner's grievance that Rs.200/- is not adequate rent for the building has some genuineness. It is always open to the RCR.No.38 of 2010 3 landlord/revision petitioner to move the Rent Control Court by an application under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent. Relegating the petitioner to that remedy, we dismiss the Revision Petition. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk