The Supreme Court has held that a landlord is not required to file a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority when the tenant challenges an eviction order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act.
In a judgment delivered on November 21, 2025, a Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan set aside an order of the Kerala High Court which had held that the Appellate Authority could not stop proceedings without a fresh application from the landlord. The Apex Court emphasized that interpreting the law to require a repetition of the procedure would turn the summary procedure “on its head” and lead to “absurd and unjust” results.
Background of the Case
The case, titled P.U. Sidhique & Ors. v. Zakariya (Civil Appeal Nos. 13901-13902 of 2025), involved two shops in Kochi rented by the Respondent-tenant. The Appellants-landlords alleged that the tenant had been in arrears of rent since early 2020.
The landlords filed eviction petitions (RCP Nos. 187 and 188 of 2020) under the Act. Additionally, a recovery suit (O.S. No. 71 of 2021) filed by the landlords was decreed in March 2023 for a sum of ₹26,44,614 along with interest and costs. While the tenant’s appeal against the money decree is pending, there is no stay on the decree.
On September 25, 2024, the Rent Controller passed orders under Section 12(1) of the Act, directing the tenant to pay outstanding arrears amounting to over ₹57 lakhs in one case and over ₹36 lakhs in the other. Upon the tenant’s failure to comply, the Rent Controller passed orders under Section 12(3) on November 7, 2024, stopping further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the buildings.
The tenant challenged these orders before the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Act. The Appellate Authority, on March 11, 2025, directed the tenant to deposit admitted rent as a pre-condition to hear the appeals. When the tenant failed to do so, the Appellate Authority stopped the hearing of the appeals and directed compliance with the eviction orders.
However, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, in revision petitions filed by the tenant, set aside the Appellate Authority’s order. The High Court held that without a specific application filed under Section 12(1) before the Appellate Court, the proceedings could not be stopped based on orders passed by the Rent Control Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the Appellants-landlords, Senior Advocate Mr. V. Chitambaresh argued that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench decision in Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. v. Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors. (2005). He contended that the expression “prefer an appeal” implies that payment or deposit of admitted arrears is a pre-condition. He highlighted that the total dues amounted to approximately ₹1.45 crores.
Conversely, Senior Advocate Mr. P.B. Krishnan, appearing for the Respondent-tenant, argued that the power under Section 12 is drastic and must be exercised in a summary manner by following the prescribed procedure. He submitted that because the power is concurrent, the Appellate Authority is obliged to follow the entire procedure under Section 12 again—meaning a fresh application, notice, and opportunity to show cause must be provided. He relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Zeenath Ibrahim & Ors. v. Joy Daniel (2024) to support the contention that a fresh application was necessary.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the reasoning of the Kerala High Court, observing that the issue “at the deeper level” was “whether laws are to be interpreted as a force for justice or not.”
Interpretation of Section 12 in Appeal
The Court held that Sections 12(1) and 12(3) procedures are primarily to be followed by the Rent Controller. While the Appellate Authority has the power to entertain a fresh application under Section 12(1) in cases of supervening events (such as accumulation of further rent during the appeal), it is not mandatory to repeat the entire procedure when testing an eviction order passed under Section 12(3).
Justice Manmohan, writing for the Bench, observed:
“The Respondent-tenant’s submission that in an Appeal challenging an eviction order under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965 a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965 is mandatory, is contrary to the explicit language of Sections 12 and 18 of the Act, 1965.”
The Court further stated that the Appellate Authority is not a court of first instance required to re-determine the issue of default but is there to test the Rent Control Court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
On the Requirement of a Fresh Application
Addressing the High Court’s reliance on the Full Bench decision in Zeenath Ibrahim, the Supreme Court clarified that the Full Bench only held that an application under Section 12(1) is maintainable in an appeal.
“This enabling power which may be required to be exercised in myriad of circumstances like subsequent events cannot be read to mean that the Full Bench has directed that in every Appeal filed under Section 18 challenging an eviction order… the entire procedure under Section 12 of the Act, 1965 has to be repeated by the Appellant-landlord, even if he has succeeded before the Rent Controller.”
Presumption Against Absurdity
The Court criticized the High Court’s approach, noting that it would lead to an “absurd and unjust result.” Comparing it to other legal provisions, the Court noted it would be akin to requiring a fresh application under Order XII Rule 6 or Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC before an Appellate Court.
“This Court is of the view that human beings, and not artificial intelligence or computers, are entrusted with the duties of administration of justice as laws are to be interpreted with empathy and pragmatism and as a force for justice, not absurdity.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the tenant had managed to occupy two premier shops in Kochi “without paying a farthing” for the last five years by advancing procedural arguments.
The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated May 22, 2025, and restored the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated March 19, 2025.
The Respondent-tenant was directed to hand over vacant physical possession of the shops to the landlords on or before December 31, 2025, subject to filing an undertaking within two weeks to pay outstanding arrears. The Court ordered:
“In the event of failure to file the undertaking within stipulated time, Appellants-landlords shall be at liberty to execute the eviction decree dated 19th March 2025 forthwith.”
