IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 114 of 2007() ------------------------ RCA.215/2005 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY ,KOZHIKODE RCP.82/2001 of RENT CONTROL COURT .KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ ARAKKAL AADIRAJA HAROON RASHEED KOYA THANGAL, S/O.UMMER HAJI ELAYA, AGED 50 YEARS, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ K.P.SREESHANTH, S/O.VELLIPARAMBATH SREENARAYANAN, AGED 41 YEARS, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 114 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. There is no appearance for the respondent who has been served. 2. Under challenge in this revision filed by the landlord is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority declining eviction on the ground of arrears of rent in reversal of the order of the Rent Control Court ordering eviction on that ground. According to the landlord, the monthly rent payable for the petition schedule building, which is situated in a very important area of Calicut city, is Rs.450/- per month. The landlord relied on Ext.A1 lease agreement. He also relied on Ext.A8 notice as well as Ext.A6 series and Ext.X1 counter foils. Ext.A8 is a notice, which was sent jointly by the present landlord and the former landlord to the respondent/tenant informing him about the purchase of the building by the present landlord. Ext.A8 contains RCR.No.114/2007 2 a statement to the effect that the contract rent payable by the respondent is Rs.450/-. Ext.A6 series are counter foils of rent receipts kept by the landlord. They reveal that the contract rent is Rs.450/-. Ext.X1 is the counter foil of receipt book which was kept by the former landlord. Ext.X1 also shows that the monthly rent payable by the respondent tenant is Rs.450/-. Apart from getting himself examined as PW1, the landlord examined PW2, the erstwhile landlady. The Rent Control Court accepting the landlord's evidence came to the conclusion that the rent at the rate of Rs.450/- per month was in arrear. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under Section 11 (2)(b). 3. The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment made a thorough reappraisal of the evidence on record and would come to the conclusion that Ext.A1 lease agreement was not properly proved. The Appellate Authority also concluded that the oral evidence of PW2 was not inspiring. Hence, the Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Rent Control Court and accepted the tenant's case that contract rent was only Rs.250/- per month. Noticing that the rent at that rate was paid, the Appellate Authority reversed the eviction order under Section 11 RCR.No.114/2007 3 (2)(b). 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.S.Nirmal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed very strenuous and persuasive arguments before us in support of those grounds. The learned counsel drew our attention to certain portions of the oral evidence as well as Ext.A8. According to him, there was no warrant for the learned Appellate Authority to have interfered with the order of the Rent Control Court. He submitted that the building in question is situated in a very important area of Calicut town and the case of the tenant that the rent, which was fixed at Rs.250/- way back in 1990, has remained static all these years is highly improbable. In response to our query, the learned counsel submitted that if the building is let out today, the same will fetch at least Rupees 4000/- to 5000/- per month. 5. We have considered the submissions of Sri.S.Nirmal. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. Persuasiveness of Mr.Nirmal notwithstanding, the question is whether there is any warrant for RCR.No.114/2007 4 invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, for interfering with the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the finding entered therein regarding the present contract rent is a finding entered on appreciating the evidence on record. We are not in a position to say that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Appellate Authority was erroneous and the findings entered by the Appellate Authority are unreasonable. This means that we do not find any justification for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. At the same time, we find genuineness in the submission of Mr.Nirmal that the rent rate of Rs.250/- per month found by the Appellate Authority is far below the rent the building may fetch, if the same is let out today. We are, therefore, inclined to refix the rent tentatively with effect from 1st November 2010 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. 6. The result of the above discussion is therefore as follows; RCR.No.114/2007 5 The judgment of the Appellate Authority is confirmed. The rent payable by the respondent/tenant is refixed with effect from 1st November 2010 at Rs.1500/- per month. We clarify that the above refixation is tentative and it is open to either party to move for fixation of fair rent by filing appropriate application under Section 5. Till such time as fair rent is fixed, the respondent shall pay the rent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. We direct the petitioner to send a copy of this order by registered post Acknowledgment Due to the respondent as soon as he obtains the same. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk