A SHUMSUDEEN Vs. G SUDHAKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this Revision filed by the tenant who is an Advocate is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court passed under Section 5 of the Act fixing the fair rent for the building at Rs.1,250/- per mensem. The contract rent was Rs.400/- per mensem. The carpet area of the building is 336 sq. ft. The building is situated in close proximity to the court complex at Trivandrum. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of Ext.A1 Rent Deed, Ext.B1 Property Tax Assessment Register and the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2. PW2 was the tenant in occupation of a building situated near to the petition schedule building. Significantly, no counter evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner/tenant to the oral evidence that was adduced on behalf of the landlord. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, particularly the independent evidence of PW2 and Ext.A1 Rent Deed executed by PW2 in favour of his landlord that for similar accommodation, the monthly rent is Rs.1,250/- and would accordingly, fix the fair rent of the building at Rs.1,250/-. In the appeal which was preferred by the revision petitioner, the Rent Control Appellate Authority made a thorough reappraisal of the evidence. The Appellate Authority would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and dismiss the appeal.

(2.) IN this revision under Section 20, the tenant has raised various grounds and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the enhancement of the rent by more than three times the existing contract rent is exorbitant. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We find that the finding entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the fair rent for the building in question is Rs.1,250/- per mensem is a reasonable finding founded on acceptable evidence which is available on record. As already indicated, the tenant/ revision petitioner who is an Advocate by profession did not become inclined to adduce even formal counter evidence to the evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord which consisted also of Ext.A1 Rent Deed and PW2's evidence. The building is admittedly situated very close to the court complex at Trivandrum where the recently established State Administrative Tribunal also is located. We feel that the rate of Rs.1,250/- fixed as fair rent is by no means exorbitant. According to us, in view of the locational advantage from the legal fraternity itself will be prepared to pay even more than the rate fixed under the impugned judgment. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. The revision fails and will stand dismissed.