Kerala High Court
Zakariya vs P.U.Sidhique on 22 May, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
RCREV.NOs.102 OF 2025 &
114 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:35415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 102 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2025 IN RCA NO.72 OF
2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VIII,
ERNAKULAM/IV ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER DATED 07.11.2024 IN RCP NO.187 OF 2020 OF III
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM (RENT CONTROL)
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :
ZAKARIYA
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN,
BUSINESS,
AYYARIL HOUSE,
V.K BAVA LANE,
SRM ROAD,
ERNAKULAM,
ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,
KANAYANNUR TALUK,
COCHIN,
PIN - 682018
BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
ANUROS MARTIN
ATHIRA K.S.
RCREV.NOs.102 OF 2025 &
114 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:35415
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :
1 P.U.SIDHIQUE
BUSINESS, S/O P.M UMMER,
PAPPUTATHU HOUSE, KRISHNASWAMI ROAD,
PULLEPADY, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 P.H.SUBAIDHA
W/O P.U. SIDHIQUE, PAPPUTATHU HOUSE,
KRISHNASWAMI ROAD, PULLEPADY,
ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
3 P.S. NIHAS
S/O. P.U SIDHIQUE, PAPPUTATHU HOUSE,
KRISHNASWAMI ROAD, PULLEPADY,
ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.05.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..114/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV.NOs.102 OF 2025 &
114 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:35415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 114 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2025 IN RCA NO.71 OF
2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT-VIII,
ERNAKULAM/IV ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER DATED 07.11.2024 IN RCP NO.188 OF 2020 OF III
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM (RENT CONTROL)
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :
ZAKARIYA
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN,
BUSINESS,
AYYARIL HOUSE,
V.K BAVA LANE,
SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,
KANAYANNUR TALUK,
COCHIN, PIN - 682018
BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
ANUROS MARTIN
ATHIRA K.S.
RCREV.NOs.102 OF 2025 &
114 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:35415
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETTIIONER :
1 P.U.SIDHIQUE
BUSINESS, S/O P.M UMMER, PAPPUTATHU HOUSE,
KRISHNASWAMI ROAD, PULLEPADY,
ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 P.H.SUBAIDHA
W/O P.U.SIDHIQUE, PAPPUTATHU HOUSE,
KRISHNASWAMI ROAD, PULLEPADY,
ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
3 P.S. NIHAS
S/O.P.U SIDHIQUE, PAPPUTATHU HOUSE,
KRISHNASWAMI ROAD, PULLEPADY,
ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.05.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..102/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV.NOs.102 OF 2025 &
114 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:35415
ORDER
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
These revisions are at the instance of the tenant. It
is unfortunate that the Appellate Authority, without looking at
the Larger Bench decision as well as the Division Bench
decision of this Court, proceeded to stop the proceedings in
the appeal, holding that the tenant failed to deposit the rent
arrears as ordered by the Rent Control Court in proceedings
initiated under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act'), eventhough no such application was filed before the
Appellate Court under Section 12(1) of the Act. If there was
an application filed under Section 12(1) of the Act, no doubt
the Appellate Authority could have passed an order stopping
the proceedings, consequent upon non-compliance with the
direction under Section 12(1) of the Act. The question is
whether there is any condition precedent to deposit the rent
arrears, as ordered by the Rent Control Court under Section
12(3) of the Act, while considering an appeal under Section
RCREV.NOs.102 OF 2025 &
114 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:35415
18 of the Act. There is no law which contemplates such a
condition precedent. (See the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in Suvarna v. Ibrahimkutty and Others
[2021(6) KHC 250]).
2. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlord
tried to rely on the Larger Bench decision of this Court in
Zeenath Ibrahim v. Joy Daniel [2024 (7) KHC 195]. In
fact, the Larger Bench only decided the question whether an
application under Section 12(1) of the Act is maintainable in
an appeal preferred under Section 18 of the Act, challenging
an order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Larger
Bench held that such an application is maintainable. That
means, in order to stop all the proceedings in an appeal
under Section 18 of the Act, there must be an application
under Section 12(1) of the Act and without such an
application under Section 12(1) of the Act, the Appellate
Court cannot dispose of the appeal or stop the proceedings
based on the orders passed by the Rent Control Court. It is
possible that a perverse order may be passed by the Rent
RCREV.NOs.102 OF 2025 &
114 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:35415
Control Court, and the Appellate Court will have to apply its
mind under Section 12(1) of the Act to decide whether a
direction to pay the admitted arrears of rent should be
passed or not. It is for the Appellate Court to decide whether
such a direction under Section 12(1) should be passed. If
such an application is not filed, the Appellate Court will have
to decide the matter on its merit in regard to the legality of
the order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act. Without
such an application, the Court cannot stop the entire
proceedings and reject the case of the tenant. The Appellate
Authority has bypassed all the procedures contemplated
under the law while deciding this appeal. In fact, the matter
ought to have been decided on its merit itself instead of
passing such an order. The appellate authority could have
disposed of the appeal itself on merits within the time taken
by it to pass the impugned order. We deprecate the practice
of the Rent Control Appellate Authority adopting such a
shortcut method overlooking the decisions of the Larger
Bench and Division Bench of this Court.
RCREV.NOs.102 OF 2025 &
114 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:35415
3. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and
the appeal is restored to files. We direct the Appellate
Authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law
within four weeks from the date of appearance. However, if
any application is filed under Section 12(1) of the Act, the
same shall also be considered in accordance with law. Till the
above relief is worked out, we direct that the execution
proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.
The parties are directed to appear before the
appellate authority on 02.06.2025.
These Rent Control Revision Petitions are disposed of
as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE
rkj
