IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 RCRev..No. 267 of 2010 (D) ------------------------------- RCA.22/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM RCP.62/2005 of ADDL.M.C. (RCC),TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------- P.DEVASAHAYAM, RESIDING AT T.C.25/3069, MOOKAMBIKA BUILDING, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ G.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT T.C.25/3068, MOOKAMBIKA BUILDING, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.267 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant an Advocate of the Thiruvananthapuram Bar is the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority fixing the fair rent of the building in question which belongs to the respondent who is also an Advocate of the same Bar at ` 800/- per mensem reversing the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the Rent Control Petition. There is some dispute at the Bar as to what is the extent of room. While Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant submitted that the extent of the building is only 180 sq. ft., Sri.D.Sajeev the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that the room has an extent of 320 sq. ft. R. C. R. No.267 of 2010 -2- 2. The building is situated in close proximity to the court complex at Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram. The existing rent rate of ` 400/- was fixed long ago. In fact earlier dispute between the parties as to what is the contract rent was settled by the Rent Control Court as early as in 1997. It is not disputed that after 1997, the rent was not varied. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties before the Rent Control Court consisting of Exts.A1 to A3, B1 to B15 series, oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and that of CPWs.1 and 2 and Ext.X1 which was the property tax assessment list pertaining to the building. 3. Sri.R.S.Kalkura argued before us that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not justified at all in placing reliance on Ext.A1 rent deed executed between strangers in respect of a nearby building. According to the learned counsel, when Ext.A1 was put in evidence, it was noticed R. C. R. No.267 of 2010 -3- that there was deficiency in the stamp duty paid and hence, the court impounded the document and passed orders directing remittance of deficiency in the stamp duty and penalty. It was submitted to the court on behalf of the landlord that the deficiency in the stamp duty and penalty is paid. As a matter of fact no payment as submitted had been made. It was a false and fraudulent submission which was made on behalf of the landlord. Even though this aspect was brought to the notice of the learned Appellate Authority by filing I.A.2772/08, the learned Appellate Authority did not pass any orders even on the I.A, so submitted Sri.Kalkura. 4. We went through the judgment of the Appellate Authority fixing rent at the rate of ` 800/- per mensem. It is not disputed before the Appellate Authority and it is not disputed before us also that the building in question is situated in close proximity to the court complex at Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram. According to us, the rate R. C. R. No.267 of 2010 -4- of ` 800/- per mensem fixed as fair rent, whether the extent of the room be 180 sq. ft. or 320 sq. ft., is not excessive. We are sure that even a building having an extent of 180 sq. ft. in close proximity to the court complex at Thiruvananthapuram where buildings are very much in demand at least among the lawyer community, will fetch more than ` 800/- per mensem. When we expressed this view of ours to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.Kalkura, he submitted that the revision petitioner was disturbed more by the action of the learned District Judge in having ignored the fact that the Rent Control Court was taken for a ride by the revision petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the authorities under the Rent Control Act are expected to decide causes before them in accordance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience also and persons who make false submissions before the court and practices fraud on court are not to be granted any R. C. R. No.267 of 2010 -5- relief. 5. We have gone through I.A.2772/08 filed by the petitioner before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The prayer in the I.A was only that the order passed by the Rent Control Court on 30/06/03 impounding the document which was later marked as Ext.A1 be taken into account and a declaration be made as to the insufficiency of the stamp duty and penalty imposed upon Ext.A1. We find that the learned Appellate Authority has on 25/03/10 itself (the day on which the impugned judgment is passed) passed separate order on the above Ext.A1 which we quote as below:- “It is seen from the lower court records that while admitting Ext.A1, the court below found that the said document was insufficiently stamped. He directed the petitioner to pay the balance stamp duty and penalty of ` 2475/-. The petitioner has not so far paid the same. Hence, issue necessary direction to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to take steps to return the said sum from the petitioner in accordance with R. C. R. No.267 of 2010 -6- law.” 6. Sri.Kalkura submitted before us that going by the certified copy furnished to him by the District Court no such order is passed. Having seen the original order which is scribed by the learned Judge on the original of the I.A. itself, we are convinced that the learned Appellate Authority passed the order quoted above. The above order, in our view redresses the grievance voiced by the petitioner in I.A.2772/08. 7. We shall now consider the submission of Sri.Kalkura that as a court of equity the Appellate Authority should not have granted relief to a party who made a patently false submission before the court. It is true that Sub Rule 8 of Rule 11 Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules refers to principles of equity also, to govern statutory authorities under the Rent Control Act for appreciating the evidence and taking decisions. But then in proceedings under Section 5 for R. C. R. No.267 of 2010 -7- fixation of fair rent, the authorities are bound to fix the fair rent. As already stated, we are convinced that the rate presently fixed at ` 800/- per mensem is not above the fair rent for this building. We dismiss this RCR directing both parties to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-