IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30424 of 2010(C)
1. T.A.HABEEB REHMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.S.ISMAIL, PUTHUPARAMBIL,
... Respondent
2. ACCOMODATION CONTROLLER & TAHASILDAR
For Petitioner :SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :21/10/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. (Civil) No.30424 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
Under challenge in this Writ Petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by
the landlord is Ext.P5 order of the Accommodation
Controller permitting the tenant to carry out the
various items of maintenance and repairs
described in the A.C. Petition filed by him. Various
grounds are raised in this Writ Petition challenging
Ext.P5.
2. We have heard submissions of Sri.Philip T.
Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner
and those of Sri.S.P.Chaly, the learned counsel for
W. P. (Civil) No.30424 of 2010 -2-
the respondents/tenants. Even though Sri.Philip T.
Varghese addressed strenuously on the basis of
the various grounds in the Writ Petition, what
appealed to us most was his argument that the
Accommodation Controller under Ext.P5 has
virtually permitted the tenant to expend unlimited
amounts and to claim adjustment of such amounts
against future rent. If Ext.P5 is allowed to stand,
the respondent will expend several lakhs of rupees
with the result that the petitioner/landlord will not
be able to recover any amount from the
respondent towards rent. Sri.Philip submitted that
the building abuts K. K. Road and is in the heart of
Mundakayam town. If the building is let out today,
it will fetch at least Rs.6,000/- per mensem.
3. Sri.Chaly submitted that as per the
W. P. (Civil) No.30424 of 2010 -3-
estimate prepared by the respondents, the total
cost in carrying out the repairs will be around
Rs.75,000/-. He submitted that there is no
infirmity about Ext.P5 as the landlord had not
carried out the repairs despite a demand in that
regard by the tenant.
4. When we invited Sri.Chaly’s attention
to the injustice in the tenant being permitted to
expend a huge sum of Rs.75,000/- and permitted
further to adjust the entire amount towards the
rent payable for the building Sri.Chaly submitted
that the tenant is prepared to spend the entire
amount himself and that no adjustment will be
claimed by the tenant of the said amount towards
rent. We record the above submission of
Sri.S.P.Chaly.
W. P. (Civil) No.30424 of 2010 -4-
5. We have very anxiously considered the
rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We find
much force in the submission of Sri.Philip that the
rent of Rs.400/- per mensem presently being paid
by the respondent is very low, when compared to
the rent prevailing in the locality. We are of the
view that in the totality of the circumstances
attending on this case, it is not just to permit the
respondent to expend the requisite amount of
Rs.75,000/- and then adjust the same against the
rent payable to the landlord. We feel that this is a
fit case where the tenant can be permitted to
expend the entire amount by himself and carry
out the repairs without any entitlement for
adjustment of the amounts towards future rent. In
this context, we are relying on the submission
W. P. (Civil) No.30424 of 2010 -5-
made by Sri.Chaly already recorded by us in
paragraph 4 above. We also feel that the rent also
can be re-fixed prospectively with effect from 1st
November, 2010 at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per
mensem. It is open to either party to move the
Rent Control Court by appropriate petition under
Section 5 for fixation of fair rent. Till such time as
fair rent is fixed, the respondent shall pay rent at
Rs.1,500/- per mensem. The result of the above
discussion, therefore, is as follows:-
6. Ext.P5 is modified and the respondent is
permitted to carry out the various items of repairs
and maintenance mentioned in Ext.P1 petition at
his own cost. The amounts expended are not
liable to be adjusted towards the rent due for the
building. At the same time, we make it clear that
W. P. (Civil) No.30424 of 2010 -6-
the respondents will not be entitled to make
structural alterations to the building. The works to
be done by the respondents should be confined to
what are sought for in Ext.P1. The rent payable by
the respondents is re-fixed at Rs.1,500/- per
mensem with effect from 1st November, 2010.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P. S. GOPINATHAN
JUDGE
kns/-
W. P. (Civil) No.30424 of 2010 -7-