[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.P.M.Shaji vs Biju Immanuel on 24 February, 2026
2026:KER:16718
R.C.Rev. No. 237 of 2025
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.
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 237 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2025 IN RCA NO.36 OF 2023
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM / III
ADDITIONAL MACT/ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY - V, KOT-
TAYAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2021 IN UNNUMB.IA / IN
RCOP NO.2 OF 2015 OF MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
K.P.M.SHAJI
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.PAREETH RAWTHER,
PUTHUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM P.O.,
MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686513
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.HARINDRAMOHAN NAIR
SHRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL)
RESPONDENT/S:
BIJU IMMANUEL
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.IMMANUEL, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O.,
KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686507
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
2026:KER:16718
R.C.Rev. No. 237 of 2025
2
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SMT.ANAVADYA SANIL KUMAR
SMT.ANJALI KRISHNA
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:16718
R.C.Rev. No. 237 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2026
Soumen Sen, C.J.
We have heard Mr. C. Harindramohan Nair, learned coun-
sel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Ad-
vocate representing Mr. P. Martin Jose, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. In view of the admitted position that the arrears of rent de-
termined were not deposited, and that the petitioner neither
filed any application before the passing of the final order to
show sufficient cause for being unable to pay the said amount,
nor contended that the said amount was not an admitted liabil-
ity, and in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Shaji M. v.
S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam No.610, Alappuzha and Another 1, the
order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority does not
call for any interference. In fact, the Full Bench has explained
the scope of Section 12(3), addressing the objections raised by
the petitioner that the order could not have been passed with-
out serving a specific notice to show cause before the closure of
1 2020 (2) KHC 574
2026:KER:16718
the proceedings and directing eviction, as discussed in para-
graph 11 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as follows:
"11. In view of the principle evolved in
Narayanan V. Vinod (supra), from the language of Sec-
tion 12 (3) of the Act and from the legislative intent, it
is not for the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority
to issue any separate notice to the tenant to enable him
to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted
arrears of rent. Instead, when the time fixed by the
court for deposit of the arrears of rent runs out and the
tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Controller
or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not
expected to pass an order ordering ejectment of the
tenant forthwith. The Rent Controller or the Appellate
Authority, as the case may be, should normally ad-
journ the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date
fixed for deposit, thereby allowing reasonable time to
the tenant to show sufficient cause for not depositing
the rent if he has committed default in payment of the
arrears of rent. We are of the considered opinion that
the interpretation made and the directions issued in
Narayanan V. Vinod (supra) is more apt and appropri-
ate to be held as a view which can be legally sustained.
It cannot be disputed that the opportunity to be af-
forded to the tenant to show 'sufficient cause' with re-
spect to the failure to pay or to deposit the rent as di-
rected in subsections (1) & (2), within the date stipu-
2026:KER:16718
lated, is not an empty formality. The principle of natu-
ral justice would mandate that the Rent Controller or
the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should af-
ford the tenant with such an opportunity. But the
question is whether the Rent Controller or the Appel-
late Authority need to issue any specific notice in this
regard to the tenant to show cause. It is to be noticed
that, the consequences provided under sub-section (3)
follows when there occurres a default in complying with
the direction for deposit or payment of the admitted ar-
rears. Therefore, on the date stipulated for effecting
such payment, by virtue of the order passed under
subsections (1) & (2), the tenant becomes fully aware
that unless sufficient cause has not been shown for the
default committed, the consequence of stoppage of the
proceedings and direction to put the landlord in pos-
session of the building, would follow automatically.
Therefore there is no necessity to alert the tenant by is-
suing any specific notice in this regard, calling upon
him to show 'sufficient cause'. On the other hand, pro-
viding of a further opportunity after the last date stipu-
lated for effecting the payment or the deposit, is not
mandatory. If no sufficient cause is shown within such
extended date to which the rent control petition is
posted, it is absolutely within the authority and compe-
tence; and is the natural consequence that the Rent
Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may
be, should stop the proceedings and direct the tenant
to put the landlord in possession of the building. Such
2026:KER:16718
a procedure, if followed, would be sufficient compliance
for providing reasonable opportunity satisfying the
statutory requirement contained in Section 12 (3).
Hence we are of the considered opinion that the deci-
sion in Narayanan V. Vinod (supra), eventhough
passed without noticing the decision in Pochappan
Narayanan V. Gopalan (supra) had laid the correct law.
The view in this regard has got support from the deci-
sion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sankaran Pillai
V. V.P. Venuguduswami (supra) and also from the deci-
sion of this court in C.V. Xavier V. Francis Leonard
Pappali (supra) and Narayanan V. Muraleedhara Maran
(supra). Hence the reference is answered accordingly."
4. In the light of the said settled position of law, this Revi-
sion Petition is only to be dismissed. It is hereby ordered so.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Soumen Sen
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Syam Kumar V.M.
Judge
vpv
