Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan held on Friday (November 21) that when a tenant challenges an eviction order for non-payment of rent under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the landlord is not required to initiate a fresh request under Section 12(1) before the Appellate Authority. The case arose from allegations of prolonged rent default concerning two commercial premises, with the tenant resisting eviction on procedural grounds. Emphasizing that an appeal cannot proceed without deposit of admitted arrears, the Court restored the Appellate Authority’s order and directed the tenant to hand over possession subject to filing an undertaking.

The dispute concerns two commercial buildings in Kochi that had been leased on a monthly rent basis to a tenant by the landlords. According to the landlords, rent for one premises remained unpaid from February 2020 and for the other from January 2020. In 2020, they initiated eviction proceedings under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, alleging arrears of rent. They also filed a civil suit in 2021 seeking recovery of unpaid rent, which resulted in a money decree in their favour.

Also Read: No New Mining Until Aravali Mapping And Ecological Assessment Are Completed: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Prepare Sustainable Mining Plan

Relying on this decree, the landlords filed applications under Section 12(1) before the Rent Controller in 2024, seeking eviction on the ground that the tenant had not cleared arrears. The Rent Controller directed payment of specified outstanding amounts and future rent within fixed time periods. When the tenant did not comply, the Rent Controller invoked Section 12(3) and stopped further proceedings, directing that possession be handed over.

The tenant appealed before the Appellate Authority under Section 18. The landlords had also initiated execution proceedings, leading the tenant to approach the High Court for interim protection. The Appellate Authority later required deposit of admitted rent as a condition for consideration of the appeals, and upon non-compliance, it stopped hearing them. The tenant then filed revision petitions before the High Court, challenging the Appellate Authority’s approach.

The Court examined whether the statutory mechanism under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 must be re-invoked at the appellate stage when an eviction order has already been passed under Section 12(3). It recorded that “Section 12(1) specifically stipulates that no tenant shall be entitled to contest either an eviction petition before the Rent Control Court or an Appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority unless he has paid or deposited…all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due and continues to pay the rent which may subsequently become due.”

The Court observed that the Appellate Authority’s role is limited, stating that “the Rent Control Appellate Authority is not the Court of first instance, it only tests the exercise of jurisdiction and power by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority is not required to re-determine the issue of default or the outstanding amount of rent. It has only to examine as to whether the Rent Control Court has erred in law or in facts and/or has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law.”

Responding to the tenant’s argument that a fresh Section 12(1) application is mandatory in appeal, the Court recorded that such a requirement does not flow from the statute. It stated that “The Respondent-tenant’s submission that…a fresh application under Section 12(1)…is mandatory, is contrary to the explicit language of Sections 12 and 18.” The Bench clarified that a renewed application is contemplated only when subsequent events arise, noting that “It is essentially in cases where supervening events have taken place during the pendency of Appeal…that the parties have the liberty to file an application under Section 12…once again before the Appellate Authority.”

The Court further stated that accepting the High Court’s interpretation would result in untenable consequences. It recorded that “the High Court’s view would ‘turn the summary procedure “on its head” and delay the eviction of an “intransigent and recalcitrant tenant.”’” It added that “It is settled law that the more absurd a suggested conclusion of construction is, the more the Court will lean against that conclusion that is ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute.”

The Bench explained why the reasoning in the impugned order could not stand, stating that “if the High Court's reasoning in the impugned order (that the Section 12 procedure has to be repeated before the Rent Control Appellate Authority) is accepted, it would not only be contrary to the spirit of the statute in question, but it would also lead to an absurd and unjust result, inasmuch as, it is akin to suggesting that in an Appeal challenging an order decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6… the Respondent-decree holder would have to once again file an application… or if an Appeal is filed challenging an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11… the Respondent-defendant would have to file the application… once again before the Appellate Court.”

Finally, while discussing precedent, the Court stated that “the said judgment cannot be a basis for the proposition that the entire procedure under Section 12 has to be repeated before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.”

Also Read: Suppression Of Material Facts Bars Relief: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Against Customs Penalty; Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs In Alleged Poppy-Seeds Concealment Case

The Court directed: “Consequently, this Court is of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court by way of the impugned order has arbitrarily and contrary to the intent and object of the Act, 1965 set aside the order of the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd May,2025 passed by the Division Bench is set aside and the judgment and order dated 19th March,2025 passed by the Appellate Authority is restored. The Respondent-tenant is directed to handover vacant physical possession of the shops in question to the Appellants-landlords on or before 31st December 2025 provided he files an undertaking within two weeks with the Registry of this Court to pay the outstanding arrears and handover peaceful physical possession by the aforesaid date. In the event of failure to file the undertaking within stipulated time, Appellants-landlords shall be at liberty to execute the eviction decree dated 19^th March 2025 forthwith.”

“With the aforesaid observations/directions, the appeals are, accordingly, allowed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karthik S.d., AOR Mr. Tom Joseph, Adv. Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. P B Krishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarath S Janardanan, AOR Mrs. Anila Tharakan Thomas, Adv. Mrs. Vishnupriya P Govind, Adv.

Case Title: P.U. Siddique & Ors. vs. Zakariya
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1340
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 13901–13902 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan