IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 544 of 2000() ---------------------------- OS.292/1995 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------- THE GREATER COCHIN DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, G.C.D.A., KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI 20. BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------- DR.K.USHA KUMARI, D/O. Lt. Col. RENGANADHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, DENTAL SURGEON, SHOP ROOM NO.3 G.C.D.A. SHOPPING ARCADE, GANGHI NAGAR, KOCHI 20. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.PRAKASH P.GEORGE THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.544 OF 2000 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The suit is one for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff is a tenant of the defendant. There was a lease for 99 years and the plaintiff was directed to pay rent of Rs.4,312.95 per annum. The landlord has taken an action for revising the rent. Therefore the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that the defendant cannot enhance the rent and the plaintiff is not liable to be evicted from the property. 2. The defendant, on the other hand, would contend that the lease is true, but there is a reservation clause whereby the GCDA reserved the right to alter any of the terms of the agreement at its own discretion, if considered necessary. Accordingly, the plaintiff was requested to remit the revised rent at the rate of Rs.8,626/= per annum from 16.10.1989 onwards. Subsequently there was a talk, which resulted in increase being limited to Rs.7,188/= per annum. 3. The court below on an appreciation of the materials : 2 : A.S.NO.544 OF 2000 arrived at a decision that the defendant had no authority unilaterally to enhance the rent and therefore granted the declaratory prayer as well as consequential injunction. It is against that decision the GCDA has come up in appeal. 4. Heard both sides. My task is lessened on account of pronunciation of a judgment by an Hon'ble Judge of this Court in an identical subject matter - A.S.No.486 of 2000 which was disposed of on 27th January, 2010. It was also a case where there was 99 years lease for an annual rent of Rs.17,040/=. There was a prayer for increase which was challenged and the trial court held that the agreement does not give power to the GCDA to vary the rent. The learned Judge exhaustively considered the clause especially clause 15 and held that the said clause gives the power for the GCDA to increase the rent. 5. It has to be stated that the rent is fixed in a case where the lease is for 99 years. By any stretch of imagination one cannot accept the argument that for 99 years this must be the rent. Therefore as time progresses and situation changes, reasonable enhancement can be done : 3 : A.S.NO.544 OF 2000 and if it is unreasonable, certainly the court has to conduct an enquiry and restrict the rent. 6. The plaint schedule premises are situated in the heart of Kochi city and the annual rent to be paid by a qualified Dentist per annum is now wanted to be modified as Rs.7,188/= which means it will not even fetch a monthly rent of Rs.600/=. Actually it is less than Rs.600/=. It cannot be envisaged or imagined that a person will be able to get a commercial establishment for a monthly rent of Rs.600/= in the heart of Kochi city. It is unfortunate that the plaintiff had chosen to file a suit against such a reasonable enhancement. Actually arbitrariness is done by the plaintiff and not by the defendant. It is further to be stated that the court below had forgotten the principle of equity, justice and good conscience and had attempted to arrive at the decision technically on the ground that enhancement is unilateral. 7. I make it very clear that if enhancement would be arbitrary and unjust, then certainly this Court will interfere. But when the enhancement is extremely reasonable, it may not be proper for any court to interfere with such decision. : 4 : A.S.NO.544 OF 2000 Therefore I find that the plaintiff is not entitled to any declaration as prayed for and I am informed that the GCDA has not taken any steps for evicting the tenant from the premises also. Therefore the appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed but the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 5 : A.S.NO.544 OF 2000 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.544 OF 2000 ............................................. 22nd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T