[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.S. Ramachandran vs C.R. Gopalakrishnan on 13 February, 2026
2026:KER:13303
O.P.(RC)No.4 of 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
OP (RC) NO. 4 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2025 IN IA 1/2025 IN RCP NO.10
OF 2025 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM (RENT CONTROL)
PETITIONER/S:
K.S. RAMACHANDRAN
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. SUNDARARAM, SARASWATHI NILAYAM,
SHANKARA NAGAR,NEAR KANNADIKADU, MARADU P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
SMT.GAYATHRI A.L.
SMT.AFRUS SHAHANA
SMT.APARNA S.
RESPONDENT/S:
C.R. GOPALAKRISHNAN
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. C.K. RANGANATHAN, RESIDING AT
KRISHNAVIHAR, SADANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016
BY ADVS.
SHRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR
SRI.TINU T.JOSEPH
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13303
O.P.(RC)No.4 of 2026
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2026
Soumen Sen, C.J.
Heard Mr. Blaze K. Jose, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Tinu T. Joseph, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. An adjudication under Section 12(1) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") by the Rent Control Court is the subject
matter of challenge in this petition. Initially, we were of the view
that, by reason of Section 18 of the Act, the said order was
appealable. However, having regard to the decisions of the co-
ordinate Bench in Sidharthan v. Hassankutty Haji1 and Puthiya
Nadammal P.M. Adbul Khadar v. V.P. Hamza 2, the appeal is not
maintainable under Section 18 of the Act.
3. Although we are of the view that certain clarity may be
required with regard to the bar on the exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in relation to
1 1994 (2) KLT 419
2 2023 KHC OnLIne 202
2026:KER:13303
such matters, which may warrant deeper consideration, we are
presently not inclined to examine the said question as it plainly
appears to us that the Court concerned was considering the
application under Section 12(1) of the Act and, while deciding
the said application, had also referred to the pleadings filed
under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded
that, in deciding an application under Section 12(1), the Court
is not to proceed merely on the basis of what the tenant has
stated with regard to the admitted arrears and it involves a
limited adjudication to ascertain whether the amount admitted
by the tenant can be accepted at that stage, leaving the parties
to obtain a decision under Section 11(2)(b) of the said Act.
5. We are in complete agreement with the said submission,
as the Rent Control Court, while deciding an application filed
by the tenant in a proceeding for eviction on the ground of
arrears of rent, is required to apply its mind and arrive at a
finding as to whether, for the purpose of ascertaining the
arrears of rent admitted by the tenant, the same can be
2026:KER:13303
accepted on the basis of the pleadings and the documents on
record.
6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the rent of
₹6,000/- was admitted by the tenant to be in arrears. The
tenant, however, raised a defence of adjustment and claimed
set-off without producing any document to substantiate such
claim. The most appropriate evidence would have been a
written agreement; in its absence, some communication from
the landlord acknowledging the adjustment and set-off claimed
by the tenant. Admittedly, no rent receipt was produced for the
period for which adjustment or set-off was claimed. Although
the landlord had made a larger claim with regard to the arrears
of rent and had relied upon the fair rent adjudicated by the
Rent Control Court in deciding the application under Section
12(1) of the Act, the Rent Control Court did not proceed on the
basis of the said fair rent and, instead, proceeded on the basis
of the rent admitted by the tenant.
7. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the Rent Control Court. The petition stands
2026:KER:13303
disposed of. However, we extend the time for compliance with
the order of the Rent Control Court by four weeks from today.
We make it clear that the claim for set-off or adjustment cannot
be considered at this stage due to lack of evidence.
Sd/-
Soumen Sen
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Syam Kumar V.M.
Judge
vpv
2026:KER:13303
APPENDIX OF OP (RC) NO. 4 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF R.C.P. NO. 10 OF 2025 FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE THIRD
ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULUM
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 1 OF 2025 IN R.C.P.
NO. 10 OF 2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE HON'BLE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF &
RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULUM
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED
BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A NO. 1 OF 2025 IN
R.C.P NO. 10/2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE THIRD
ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULUM
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2025 IN
I.A. NO. 1/2025 IN R.C.P.NO.10/2025 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT
CONTROLLER, ERNAKULUM
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE AMOUNT
TRANSFERRED BY THE PETITIONER FROM STATE
BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT (UPI TRANSACTION ID
535273341249) TO THE RESPONDENT'S BANK
ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 037110000187 OF DENA
BANK
