Kerala High Court
M.K. Noorudeen vs Mohammed Idries on 7 April, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 62 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2025 IN RCA NO.56 OF 2024 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VIII, ERNAKULAM / IV
ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2024 IN
RCP NO.67 OF 2020 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM (RENT CONTROL)
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
M.K. NOORUDEEN
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. MUSTHAFA, CITY BAG HOUSE AND FOOTWEAR, CLOTH BAZAR
ROAD, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
ANUROS MARTIN
ATHIRA K.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
MOHAMMED IDRIES
S/O. MOHAMMED RAFIQUE, RESIDING AT C.C.42/2318 (NEW
NO.68/1234) K2 LINK HERITAGE, FLAT NO.10C, CHITTOOR ROAD,
KOCHI, PIN - 682018
BY ADV J.R.PREM NAVAZ J.R
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON 07.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NO. 62 OF 2025
-:2:-
2025:KER:30894
ORDER
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This revision is filed by the tenant challenging an order under
Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This is the second round
of litigation. The landlord claims that rent arrears are due from
January 2019 onwards at the rate of Rs.1,45,000/- per month. The
tenant would contend that the rent payable is only Rs.5,000/- per
month. When the initial order was passed, there was no documentary
evidence to substantiate the claim made by the landlord that the rent
payable is Rs.1,45,000/- per month.
2. In R.C.Rev. No. 153/2022 filed before this Court, the
landlord produced a copy of a rent deed submitted by the tenant
before the GST authority. Therefore, the matter was remanded for
reconsideration before the Rent Control Court. We find that the Rent
RCREV. NO. 62 OF 2025
2025:KER:30894
Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority entered into
a fact finding as to the rate of rent, relying on the following aspects:
i The rent deed produced by the tenant before the GST
authority.
ii. A cheque bearing No.933201, dated 03/01/2020, drawn on
UCO Bank, Ernakulam branch, issued by the tenant for a sum of
Rs.15,95,000/- in favour of the landlord, which was dishonoured.
iii. No reply was given by the tenant to the quit notice
demanding arrears of rent.
3. The learned counsel for the tenant submits that the tenant
disputes execution of the rent deed and therefore, the matter
requires adjudication. Further, it is submitted that when the matter
requires adjudication, the Rent Control Court cannot direct the tenant
to pay the rent as demanded by the landlord.
4. It is to be noted that the tenant had produced this rent
deed before the GST authority for registration. That means, he had
no dispute regarding the rent deed when he produced it before the
RCREV. NO. 62 OF 2025
2025:KER:30894
GST authority. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out
that when the rent deed was summoned by the Court from the GST
authority, the tenant did not raise any dispute as to the signature in
it. The tenant raised a contention regarding the insufficiency of the
stamp and accordingly, the landlord was forced to pay about Rs.17
lakhs towards stamp duty and penalty. It is a mandate under the law
that, for a tenant to contest the matter, he has to pay the admitted
arrears of rent. The court cannot take a mechanical approach to
accept the admission of the tenant. If the tenant, in order to wriggle
out of his liability, raises false claims in regard to rent, the court
should frown upon such tactics adopted by the tenant. What is
disclosed in the rent deed, unless and until disproved, will have to be
taken as the admitted rent. In Gopala Panicker Baiju and another
v. Mallika [2018 (5) KHC 95] and Mohammed Idries v.
M.K.Noorudeen (2023 KHC Online 9448), the Division Bench of this
Court held that admitted arrears of rent can be inferred from the rent
deed or rent receipts. In a matter like this, when the landlord claims
RCREV. NO. 62 OF 2025
2025:KER:30894
rent at the rate of Rs.1,45,000/- and when the tenant claims that he
is liable to pay only Rs.5000/-, it can be seen that the tenant is
attempting to throw the entire process of Court in air and defeat the
very objective of the law. Therefore, admitted arrears of rent have
to be understood as the rent payable by the tenant as disclosed from
the materials before the Court at the time of passing the order under
Section 12(1) of the Act. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate
Authority had entered the fact finding on a proper perspective.
5. The tenant had also issued a cheque bearing No.933201,
dated 03/01/2020, drawn on UCO Bank, Ernakulam Branch, for a
sum of Rs.15,95,000/-, in favour of the landlord, which was
dishonoured, and he was subsequently convicted by the criminal
court. If the rent is calculated at the rate admitted by the tenant, it
would in no way come to the amount as stated in the cheque. We
also note that when the tenant got a first opportunity to refute the
claim of the landlord's demand for arrears of rent at the rate of
Rs.1,45,000/-, he had not opted to respond to the notice.
RCREV. NO. 62 OF 2025
2025:KER:30894
In the above circumstances, we find that the tenant is
attempting to evade his liability towards the arrears of rent.
Accordingly, the rent control revision is dismissed. We order the
execution court to expedite the execution proceedings, which are
stated to be pending there.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE
ms
