Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act | Landlord Need Not File S. 12(1) Application Again In Tenant's Appeal : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (November 21) ruled that there's no requirement for the landlord to file a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 when tenants challenge an eviction order for non-payment of rent before the Appellate Authority.

“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.”, observed a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan while ordering eviction of two prime commercial shops in Kochi for more than five years without paying rent.

The Court held that as the Rent Control Appellate Authority has full power to examine the legality and validity of the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965, to insist upon the Appellant-landlord to repeat the procedure under Section 12 of the Act, 1965 would be a superfluous and unnecessary exercise.

The case involved two shops in the heart of Kochi. The tenant, Zakariya, had stopped paying rent in early 2020. The landlords initiated eviction proceedings under Section 11 of the Act and simultaneously filed a money suit. In March 2023, a civil court decreed ₹26,44,614 in arrears against the tenant, a decree that remained unstayed.

Relying on this decree, the landlords filed an application Section 12(1) in the Rent Control Proceedings before the Rent Controller. As per Section 12(1), a tenant has to deposit the admitted rent to contest any application seeking eviction. In September 2024, the Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit arrears of nearly ₹1 crore. When he failed to do so, the Rent Controller invoked Section 12(3) and stopped all further proceedings, and passed directions to put landlord in possession of the property in November 2024.

The tenant appealed before the Rent Control Appellate Court. When the Appellate Court directed him to deposit “admitted rent” and he again failed, it stopped the appeal proceedings. But the Kerala High Court intervened, ruling that the Appellate Authority could not have acted under Section 12(3) without a fresh Section 12(1) application filed in the appeal, effectively requiring the landlords to restart the process entirely.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, a judgment authored by Justice Manmohan observed that a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Act would not be essential, adding that the Appellate Authority is a court of review, not a court of first instance, and its role is to examine the legality of the Rent Controller's order, not to re-determine the fact of default or the quantum of rent afresh.

The Court concluded that accepting the High Court's view would "turn the summary procedure 'on its head' and delay the eviction of an 'intransigent and recalcitrant tenant'."

“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 court said, adding that such an absurd interpretation would allow defaulting tenants to exploit procedural technicalities to indefinitely stall eviction.

The Supreme Court observed 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 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC'), the Respondent-decree holder would have to once again file an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC before the Appellate Authority or if an Appeal is filed challenging an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, then the Respondent-defendant would have to file the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC once again before the Appellate Court."

The Supreme Court also held that the decision of the High Court's Full Bench in Zeenath Aman only held that Section 12(1) application is maintainable in appeal as well, and it did not follow from the said decision that Section 12(1) application has to be necessarily filed in appeal as well.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: P.U. SIDHIQUE & ORS. VERSUS ZAKARIYA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1130

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karthik S.d., AOR Mr. Tom Joseph, Adv. Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. P B Krishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarath S Janardanan, AOR Mrs. Anila Tharakan Thomas, Adv. Mrs. Vishnupriya P Govind, Adv.