IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 429 of 2010(C) ------------------------ RCA.29/2008 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.24/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS : RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------- 1. SMITHA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE LOKANATHAN, 1/666A BHAGAVATHY HOTEL, PUDUSSERY POST, PALAKKAD. 2. MURUKESA MUTHALIYAR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.ANNA MUTHALIYAR, BHAGAVATHY HOTEL, PUDUSSERY POST, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SRI.A.V.RAVI SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT : APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------- V.KRISHNAN, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O.VELU EZHUTHASSAN, PALAPUZHA HOUSE, PUDUSSERY AMSOM DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK – 678 621. ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** R.C.R No.429 of 2010-C ***************************** Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. This Rent Control Revision is directed against a concurrent finding by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority rendered in a claim for eviction, inter alia, under Section 11(2) (b) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). 2. The claim for eviction under Section 11(2) of the Act was staked by the landlord on the plea that Rs.3,000/- per mensem is the monthly rent payable. Ext.A1 is the admitted deed of entrustment under which, one room was entrusted. After Ext.A1 was executed on 27.07.2002, it is the admitted case that two other adjacent rooms were also entrusted to the possession of the tenant by the landlord. Such subsequent entrustment was on 16.10.2002. It is the case of the landlord that there was enhancement of rent when such subsequent entrustment was made. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant had made an endorsement on Ext.A1 (marked as Ext.A1 (a)), under which the tenant had agreed that enhanced rent @ R.C.R No.429/2010 2 Rs.3,000/- per mensem shall be payable. Ext.A1 provides for periodic enhancement of such rent also. 3. In the course of trial, the tenant denied any such agreement for enhancement of rent. She, who accepted that after the commencement of this lease, two further rooms were also entrusted to her, took the stand that there was no stipulation regarding enhancement of rent. In the course of trial, she denied Ext.A1(a) endorsement. 4. The Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that rent is payable @ Rs.3,000/- per mensem as per the endorsement in Ext.A1(a). The rent is liable to be enhanced at 10% as stipulated in Ext.A1, it was further held by the Rent Control Court. Accordingly the Rent Control Court allowed the claim under Section 11(2) of the Act. In appeal, the appellate authority concurred with the finding of the Rent Control Court that there was enhancement of rent under Ext.A1(a) endorsement in Ext.A1. However, the appellate authority vacated the order of eviction under Section 11(2) of the Act on other grounds. No revision is filed by the landlord against rejection of the claim under Section 11(2) by the Appellate Authority. 5. It is unnecessary for us in this revision to go into the R.C.R No.429/2010 3 validity of the order of appellate authority setting aside the order under Section 11(2) of the Act. 6. It is the tenant who has come up with this revision and the only ground of challenge is that the authorities concurrently have erred in coming to the conclusion that there was a stipulation regarding enhancement of rent under Ext.A1 agreement. Even though there is no order of eviction under Section 11(2) of the Act against the revision petitioner/tenant, the revision petitioner/tenant claims to be aggrieved by the said crucial concurrent finding of the authorities. 7. We must alertly remind ourselves of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction that we are called upon to invoke and exercise. We are satisfied that by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction vested in us under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 it is not necessary for us to interfere with the finding that Ext.A1(a) is a valid endorsement and that enhanced rent is liable to be paid on the basis of Ext.A1 agreement. 8. We do take note that the authorities had adverted to the question properly. The evidence of the landlord about entrustment of further premises after the lease under Ext.A1 R.C.R No.429/2010 4 agreement is admitted. It is idle to assume that rent would not have been enhanced even after entrustment of further rooms. The finding of facts by the authorities below is thus found to be rhyming well with the reason, logic and commonsense. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of facts which can persuade us to invoke our revisional jurisdiction. 9. This R.C.R.P is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R.C.R.P No.358 of 2010 between the parties is being separately disposed of. We note that the landlord has raised a contention that he must in that revision be permitted to assail the decision of the Appellate Authority dismissing the claim for eviction under Section 11(2). That question shall be considered in RCRP No.358 of 2010. Suffice it to say that we find no reason to interfere with the finding on the rate of rent payable. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/