IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 19 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.48/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ,KOTTAYAM RCOP.3/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, PALA .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------- K.J.JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, PULIYANOOR KARA, -DO- VILLAGE, PULIYANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- E.M.JOSEPH, EROORICKAL, DEEPTHI DENTAL CLINIC, BUILDING NO.135, WARD NO.VIII, PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA, RESIDING AT EROORICKAL HOUSE, KIZHAPARAYAR P.O., POOVARANY VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R1 SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 19 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 15h day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the landlord is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority by which the Appellate Authority has fixed the fair rent payable by the respondent/tenant at Rs.750/- per mensem. In fact, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord and enhanced the fair rent from Rs.463/- per mensem to Rs.750/- per mensem. According to the revision petitioner, even the rate of Rs.750/- per month fixed by the Appellate Authority is grossly inadequate. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent/tenant would oppose the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The learned counsel would support the impugned RCR..No.19/2011 2 judgment of the Appellate Authority on the various reasons stated therein. According to him, there is no warrant within the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20 to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority which is legal, regular and proper. 3. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having made an overall survey of the evidence on record, we feel that the judgment of the Appellate Authority requires modification. The building in question has admittedly an area of 250 sq. feet and the same is situated in one of the commercially most important areas of the Palai Town which is undoubtedly a major town in Kottayam District. The respondent is a dentist, who is conducting a clinic in the petition schedule building. If we take into account the prevailing rental rates in Palai town, fair rent may have to be fixed at very high rates. But, we notice that the prayer of the landlord in the petition was to have the fair rent fixed at Rs. 6/- per sq. feet i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. In view of that prayer, we are inclined to allow this revision only to the extent of fixing the fair rent with effect from the first day of the month during which RCR..No.19/2011 3 the Rent Control Court passed its order at Rs.1,000/- mensem. In this context, we notice the judgment of this court in Sreekumaran Nair v Ponnuswami Chettiyar (2010(3) KLT 444) authored by one among us (PCK(J). In that judgment, this court held that authorities under the Rent Control Act have the power not only to fix the fair rent but also to allow reasonable modifications to the rate so fixed at reasonable intervals by the order fixing fair rent itself. But, we are not inclined to allow such re fixation at reasonable intervals in the present order since we feel that doing so will be beyond the prayers in the rent control petition and may result in prejudice to the respondent. We make it clear that it will be open to the landlord to move the Rent Control Court for refixation of the fair rent by initiating appropriate proceedings. If any fresh proceedings are initiated by the landlord, such proceedings should be decided on the basis of the contentions raised by the parties and also the evidence adduced by them in such proceedings. We do not find any warrant for interfering with the impugned decision of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority declining eviction on the ground under section 11 (2) RCR..No.19/2011 4 (b). To that extent, the revision petition fails. The Revision Petition is allowed fixing fair rent at Rs.1,000/- per mensem. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk