ANTONY PARAPILLY Vs. THOMAS KALLIATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed challenging the order in RCA No.13 of 2011 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority III, Thrissur, which affirmed the fixing of fair rent by order dtd. 20/8/2010 in RCP No.87 of 2006 of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the tenant/4th respondent in RCP No.87 of 2006, which was one instituted by the first respondent herein-the landlord under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control)Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The landlord contended that the petition schedule room was taken on lease by one Baby Antony, the wife of respondent No.1 in the rent control petition from Jacob Kalliath, the father of the petitioner as per a rent deed dtd. 1/7/1962 for a monthly rent of Rs.55.00 excluding electricity charges. The original tenant died and after her death, the respondents are in occupation as legal heirs. Earlier, fair rent was fixed at Rs.1156.00 with effect from 1/8/1997, in proceedings initiated by the landlord that reached upto this Court. The landlord contends that the petition schedule property is situated in 4 cents in building No.27/35 of Thrissur Corporation and that the respondents would be earning an income of Rs.1,00,000.00 from the business carried on in the property. The building is situated in a very important commercial centre in Thrissur town, where the prevailing rent is up to Rs.40.00 per Sq.ft. The tenant is occupying a building having a plinth area of 750 Sq.ft., which according to the landlord will fetch a monthly rent of Rs.30,000.00. It is also contended that there are several commercial centres like Kalyan Silks, Josco Jewellers, Biju and Co., Paint shop, Fashion Paints, and Pulimoottil textiles, etc situated adjacent to the building in question. The Thrissur Municipal North bus stand is also in the vicinity of the building. Apart from all these Bhima Jewellers, Joy Alukkas Jewellery, etc. have come up in the area.

(3.) The 4th respondent in the rent control petition alone filed a counter contending that there is no ground for enhancing the rent fixed and that the building is in a by-lane which is narrow. It is also their contention that the building was taken for starting a typewriting institute The landlord never effected periodical affairs and therefore the tenant had to do it using their funds.