IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 SA.No. 698 of 2000(G) --------------------- AS.161/1996 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA OS.132/1991 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------ 1.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE ALAPPUZHA DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA 688 012 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT INDIAN POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------------- THE VICAR, ST.MARYS FERONA CHURCH CHERTHALA ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN BY ADV.SRI.P J JOSEPH THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.08.2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- SA No.698 of 2000-G ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August 2011 Judgment Faced with concurrent decrees against them, the defendants in OS No.132/91 before the Sub Court, Cherthala, have come up in appeal. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court. 2. The suit was one for arrears of rent. It appears that the plaintiff in the suit had leased out the premises to the defendants for a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. Later, it is seen that the defendants wanted modifications and installations to be made to the building for which they compelled the landlord. The landlord replied that he was wiling to do the same provided the defendants were prepared to enhance the rent. That was agreed to by the plaintiff and the work was done. The landlord sought enhancement of rent. It seems that dispute arose between SA 698/00 2 the landlord and the tenants regarding the modifications made to the building. Ultimately, it so happened that the request for enhancement was declined by the defendants. That necessitated the suit. 3. The main contention of the defendants in the suit was that there was no contract agreeing to pay the enhanced rent and also that the plaintiff had not completed the work sought for by them and therefore, they were not liable to pay any enhanced rent. On the above contentions, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the above pleadings, issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A17 from the side of the plaintiff. Defendants had DW1 examined and Exts.B1 to B12 marked. Ext.A1 is the commissioner's report. 5. The trial court, on a consideration of the evidence, found that the plaintiff had carried out a major portion of the work as required by the defendants and only SA 698/00 3 a minor portion remained to be completed. Therefore, the lower court was of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to enhance the rent at the rate of Rs.425/- from 22.08.1984. It is seen that after that period, the entire work was completed and a very minor item was to be completed. Therefore, the trial court felt it fit to grant enhancement at the rate of Rs.445/- from 19.11.1986 against the agreed rent of Rs.450/-. A decree was accordingly passed. 6. The defendants carried the matter in appeal as AS No.161/96 before the District Court, Alappuzha. The lower appellate court was of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to enhance the rent from Rs.425/- from 19.11.1986. That brings the defendants before this court. 7. Notice is seen issued on the following questions of law raised in the second appeal : 1.Whether determination of fair rent or enhanced rent can be made by a civil court in the light of the applicability of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act to the building involved ? 2.Whether the claim made in the plaint is not barred by limitation ? SA 698/00 4 3.Whether a suit for declaration will lie in respect of a building covered under the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act for enhancement on arrears of rent ? 4.Whether a mandatory injunction for direction of payment of rent is maintainable in a court of law ? 8. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that proceedings are in fact for fixation of fair rent and the civil court is not the proper forum for fixation of fair rent. It is the function of the rent control court and therefore the rent now fixed by the courts below enhancing the contractual rent is without jurisdiction. It is also pointed out that there was no contract between the parties by which the defendants had undertaken to enhance the rent to Rs.450/-. These vital aspects have been omitted to be noticed by the court below and that has resulted in an erroneous decree being passed. 9. Though the argument may look attractive at the first blush, it is without any substance whatsoever. It is trite that the contract may be inferred from the communications between parties and there need not be an SA 698/00 5 agreement as such. Both the courts below have considered the communications between the parties and come to the conclusion that the defendants had agreed to enhance the rate of rent to Rs.450/- provided the plaintiff carries out the additional works to the building as required by them. Both the courts below have found that major portion of the work had been carried out and only a minor portion remained to be completed. Under these circumstances, the courts below thought it proper that there was a contract between the parties as could be discernible from the communications in pursuance of which the plaintiff had carried out the work. Therefore, the contention that there is no agreement between the parties, has to fail. 10. Equally without substance is the contention that the civil court has no jurisdiction to enhance the rent and it is only the rent control court which can fix the fair rent. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that fixation of fair rent is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the rent control court. But in the case on hand, it is not fixation SA 698/00 6 of fair rent that is sought for, but enforcement of a contract between parties. The first defendant had agreed to enhance the rent to Rs.450/- provided the landlord carried out certain works demanded by the defendants. It is true that the entire work had not been done but a major portion had been completed and that is so found by the courts below. The courts below have also placed reliance on the commissioner's report which would show that a major portion of the work as required by the tenants had been carried out. It is under those circumstances that the court below enhanced the rent and granted a decree to the plaintiff. 11. The findings of the courts below are findings of fact based on evidence on record. No questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. P.Bhavadasan, Judge SA 698/00 7 sta SA 698/00 8