JOSE Vs. WILLIAMS DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these revision petitions are filed challenging the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in R.C.A.Nos.72/2010 and 88/2010 filed by the revision petitioner herein and the respondent, both revision petitions have heard together and disposed of accordingly. The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition. The revision petitioner in both these revision petitions are one and the same. Now, he is confronting with an order of eviction, passed concurrently, by the courts below under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and an order fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule building @ Rs. 20,000/- with 10% enhancement of rent for every two years.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the petition schedule shop room belongs to him by virtue of a Sale Deed No.2487/2006. The petition schedule shop room was leased out to the respondent on 09.11.1962 for a monthly rent of Rs. 105/- by the prior landlord. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced and paid @ Rs. 1400/-. While so, the petitioner purchased the petition schedule building as per the aforesaid Sale Deed. The respondent has kept the rent in arrears from April, 2006 onwards. Consequently, on 14.08.2006, the petitioner has issued a notice to the respondent demanding arrears of rent and payment of rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month with effect from 01.09.2006. There has been considerable increase in the rate of rent at the locality, where the petition schedule shop room is situated. The petition schedule building is situated on the side of east post office road, which is adjacent to Municipal bus stand, Corporation Office, Sakthan Tampuran Bus Stand, Jai Hind Market etc. According to the petitioner, the petition schedule building is situated in the heart of Thrissur town. The petition schedule shop room is surrounded by so many important institutions of trade and commerce. The respondent has sent a reply with false averments. Thus the petitioner has prayed for an order of eviction under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act and for an order under Section 5(1) of the Act, directing the respondent to pay the enhanced rent @ Rs. 20,000/- per month with effect from 01.09.2006 onwards.

(3.) The respondent filed counter statement denying the claim for the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) on the ground of arrears of rent and disputed the claim for enhancement of rent @ Rs. 20,000/- per month. According to the respondent, the respondent has filed O.S.No.944/2006 in the Sub Court for specific performance of the agreement for sale against the prior landlord. So, the document purportedly executed as Sale Deed by the prior landlord in favour of the petitioner is not a legally valid sale deed. It did not convey title to the petitioner. The petitioner had mischievously obtained a document and the document is one without consideration. Further, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get enhanced rent as the petition schedule building is not situated in a prime location as claimed by the petitioner. The petition schedule building is an old dilapidated building having no amenities at all. The prior owner had in fact agreed to sell the property to the respondent in the presence of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to get an order for specific performance.