IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No. 90 of 2005() ----------------------- REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH @ JOSE S/O. ROSILY, MERCANTILE FUND, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF,DEFENDANTS 2 & BRS.OF 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. A.S.PARVATHY KRISHNAN, W/O. T.R.KRISHNAN, RETD.P.W.D.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 'VRINDAVAN', SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. DAVID S/O. ROSILY MERCANTILE FUND SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. ROY S/O. ROSILY, CHIREMEL HOUSE, NEAR ST.JOSEPH'S CONVENT, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. 4. ROBIN S/O. ROSILY, DO. DO. 5. ANEESA D/O. ROSILY, DO. DO. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.90 OF 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 20h day of August, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is a revision filed by the tenant, who is aggrieved by the fixation of fair rent by the authorities under the Rent Control Act. Though service is completed, the respondents/landlords have not entered appearance. It is submitted by Sri.Dilip J.Akkara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant that the question as to which court is competent to fix the fair rent is now under the consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel, therefore, requested that stay of the operation of the impugned judgment be granted and the case be adjourned till such time as the Supreme Court decided the issue finally. 2. We have considered the above submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is stated by Sri.Dilip J.Akkara that the building in question is situated by the side of the Shornur road in Thrissur Municipal Corporation and very close to the Swaraj Round, which is commercially the most important area in the said town. The total carpet area of the RCR.No.90/2005 2 building, we are told is, 320 Sq.feet. We are sure that the rent currently being paid by the revision petitioner (Rs.75/- per mensum) is far below the fair rent payable for this building whenever it is fixed by the competent court. We are told by learned counsel Sri.Akkara that the contract rent originally fixed was Rs.30/- per month, which was fixed in an earlier proceeding between the parties under Section 5 of the Rent Control Act in R.C.O.P No. 101/1978. According to us, the present RCP filed again under Section 5 is not maintainable in law, in view of Section 6 of the Rent Control Act. The pleadings will reveal that the landlords does not have a case that any additional constructions have been made or additional facilities provided to the tenant after previous fixation of the fair rent in R.C.O.P No.101/1978. Therefore, according to us, it is not necessary to wait till the Supreme Court gives its verdict on the jurisdictional competence of the Rent Control Court. 2. We hold that RCP is not maintainable and on that basis we vacate the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. At the same time, we are of the view that there is justification for tentatively refixing the rent payable by the revision petitioner RCR.No.90/2005 3 tenant for this building at Rs.975/- per month. 3. Accordingly, we refix the rent payable every month by the revision petitioner to the respondents landlords at Rs.975/- per month. This refixation will be with effect from 22/2/2005. The arrears resulting from this refixation can be paid by the revision petitioner in 10 equal monthly instalment payable along with the monthly rent payable from 1st September, 2009. The RCR will stand disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk