The Supreme Court held that in appeals challenging eviction orders under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings Act, the Appellate Authority is not required to mandatorily re-initiate the entire Section 12 procedure. The deposit of admitted arrears, as determined by the Rent Controller, is a precondition to contest the appeal, unless supervening events warrant a fresh application.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellants are landlords who filed eviction petitions against the respondent-tenant for two shops in Kochi, alleging non-payment of rent since early 2020. The Rent Controller, relying on a prior money decree for arrears, passed orders under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings Act, directing the tenant to pay substantial outstanding and future rents. Upon the tenant’s failure to comply, eviction orders were passed under Section 12(3). The tenant appealed. The Appellate Authority directed the tenant to deposit the admitted rent as a precondition to hearing the appeal and, after non-compliance, stopped the appeal proceedings, upholding the eviction. The High Court, in revision, set aside this order, ruling that the Appellate Authority could not act under Section 12(3) without a fresh application from the landlord under Section 12(1). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against this High Court judgment.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with eviction petitions (RCP Nos. 187 & 188 of 2020) filed by the landlords before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. Upon the tenant’s failure to comply with deposit orders under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings Act, the Rent Controller passed eviction orders under Section 12(3) in November 2024. The tenant appealed (RCA Nos. 71 & 72 of 2024) to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which, after the tenant’s non-deposit of admitted arrears, stopped the appeals and upheld the eviction in March 2025. The tenant’s revision petitions (RCREV Nos. 102 & 114 of 2025) were allowed by the Kerala High Court in May 2025, which set aside the Appellate Authority’s order. The landlords then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and culminated in the present civil appeals.
READ ALSO:Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Grounds for Rejecting a Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the mandatory procedure under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings Act is primarily for the Rent Controller, and its repetition before the Appellate Authority is not required when challenging a Section 12(3) eviction order. The Court held that deposit of arrears as determined by the Rent Controller is a precondition to contest the appeal, and the Appellate Authority has the discretion to regulate hearings based on this compliance. It found that accepting the High Court’s view would defeat the statute’s summary nature and lead to absurd, unjust results by allowing an intransigent tenant to prolong occupation without payment. The Court emphasized that laws must be interpreted as a force for justice, not applied mechanically to produce irrational outcomes.
Final Decision & Judgement:
Case Details:
Case Title: P.U. Sidhique & Ors. vs. Zakariya Citation: 2025 INSC 1340 Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 13901-13902 of 2025 Date of Judgement: November 21, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Manmohan & Justice Rajesh Bindal
Download The Judgement Here