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 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 130 of 2010() ------------------------------------ RCA.NO. 8/2006 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR RCP.NO. 2/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.P. PAULOSE, AGED 80, S/O. PAILY, CHITTAYATH HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, WORKING AS ADVOCATE, OFFICE ROOM NO.PMC XVII/253 (OLD NO. PMC IX/115) PERUMBAVOOR KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JOSEPH SRI.JOE POLLAYIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- V.R. OJESS, AGED 46, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, VIJAYAVILASAM, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011. O R D E R PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. Appellant is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision the judgment of the Rent Control Court Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court fixing the fair rent for the building in question at Rs.1,500/- per month with effect from October, 2000. The building is situated in a very prominent spot within the area of Perumbavoor Municipality. It is not disputed that the petition schedule building is just 20 feet away from Perumbavoor Court premises and is situated on a main road. R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010 -:2:- 2. Revision petitioner is an advocate and he is practising his profession in the petition schedule building. Respondent is also an advocate by profession. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The legal ground which is argued seriously by Sri.Roshin Ipe Joseph, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that at the time when the Rent Control Court passed the order, S.5 of Act 2/65 by virtue of which only the Rent Control Court can fix the fair rent, was not in force. According to him the Rent Control Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to fix the fair rent at that time. Learned counsel would attack the judgment on the merits also. It was submitted that there is no justification for fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010 -:3:- The maximum rent which can be fixed as fair rent is Rs.500/-. 3. Sri.B.Krishnamani, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned judgment. He submitted that it may be true that at the time when the Rent Control Court passed the order, S.5 of the Act 2/65 was not in force. But the Appellate Authority passed the impugned judgment based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (1) KLT 767(Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria). Mr.Krishnamani would submit that having regard to the commercial importance of the Perumbavoor town and the locality where the building is situated and the further circumstance that the building is situated in a spot which is having close proximity to Perumbavoor Court premises, what is presently fixed is lesser than the correct fair R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010 -:4:- rent. The counsel requested that this Court sustain the impugned judgment and makes it clear that it will be open to the respondent to apply for refixation of fair rent at a higher rate. Learned counsel would also complain that the revision petitioner has kept even the contracted rent in arrears. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions and scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We are not impressed by the submissions of Sri.Roshin that the Rent Control lacked inherent jurisdiction to fix fair rent. It is not disputed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally held that the Rent Control Court is having jurisdiction and once the Hon'ble Supreme Court declares the law, what is declared is law as it always has been. In R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010 -:5:- our view the Rent Control Court did have the jurisdiction to fix fair rent. At any rate there cannot be any quarrel that when the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed the impugned judgment at a time when it had been finally held that S.5 is in operation. Under the statutory scheme the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority have co-equal powers and the Appellate Authority is the final Court on facts. We repel the legal arguments raised by Sri.Roshin regarding the lack of jurisdiction. 5. We will now examine the merits of the matter. The building in question is situated in Perumbavoor Town. Perumbavoor is an ancient Municipality of the State. It is situated at Aluva-Munnar road which is one of the ancient main roads in the State. Perumbavoor is a also a commercial centre. We have Courts of various R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010 -:6:- levels at Perumbavoor and we are told that it is in evidence that the building in question which abuts a main road is situated at just 20 feet away from the Court complex at Perumbavoor. It is very clear to our mind that Rs.1,500/- per month fixed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is the fair rent of the building. 6. At the same time we are of the view that the Court below was not justified in fixing fair rent with effect from October 2000. According to us it would have been more proper if fair rent was fixed with effect from 10.2.2004. Therefore we modify the order of the Rent Control Court as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The order fixing the fair rent will be operative with effect from 10.2.2004 only. The R.C.R. is disposed of with R.C.R. NO. 130 OF 2010 -:7:- the above modification. 7. As regards the comp of the learned counsel for the respondent that rent is in arrears, we are told that the landlord has already initiated eviction proceedings. It is always open to the landlord to pursue those proceedings. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. Sd/-N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/- [ True copy ] P.A. to Judge.