IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 351 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.118/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.732/1999 of II ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. GOPI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. KALLULLY KARUVAN AYYAPPAN, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA DESOM, CHAMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SATHYAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KALLULLY KARUVAN AYYAPPAN, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA DESOM, CHAMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- MATHEWS, S/O. JOSEPH, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.A.SATHEESH BABU THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.265/2006 IN RCR.351/2005 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 28.7.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.351 of 2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 O R D E R ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Counsel for revision petitioner is absent. But in the nature of the present jurisdiction which is revisional, and having gone through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority under which relief was given to the revision petitioner, we are of the view that we are justified in considering the merits of the matter. The matter pertains to fixation of fair rent of a commercial building situated in a very important area of Thrissur Corporation. The trial court fixed fair rent at Rs.1500/- per mensem. The Rent Control Appellate Authority would reduce the same to Rs.1000/-. According to us, the evidence on record in the case which consisted of oral evidence of PW1, DW1 to 3 and documents Exts.A1 to A4 would justify the fixation of fair rent at least at the rate presently fixed by the Appellate Authority. We feel that it is the landlord RCR.351/05 2 who should have been aggrieved by the fixation of fair rent by the Appellate Authority. We do not find any warrant for interference at the instance of the tenant. RCR is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb