[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Parakkal Haridasan vs Muhammed Kasim on 24 February, 2026
2026:KER:16713
R.C.REV. NO. 57 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.
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947
R.C.REV. NO. 57 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2026 IN R.C.A.NO.54 OF 2025
OF DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
MANJERI
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2025 IN R.C.P.NO.1 OF
2025 OF MUNSIFF COURT/RENT CONTROL COURT, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
PARAKKAL HARIDASAN,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. BHARGAVI AMMA PERUVALLOOR AMSOM
AND DESOM, P O PERUVALLOOR, THIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673639.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SRI.JASNEED JAMAL
SMT.LIRA A.B.
SMT.DEVIKA E.D.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED KASIM, AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. MUKKANNAN ABDUL GAFOOR, KAVNUR AMSOM AND
DESOM,P O KAVANUR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA ANKATH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.
2026:KER:16713
R.C.REV. NO. 57 OF 2026
2
ALIKKUTTY, KAVNUR AMSOM, P.O. KAVNUR, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 639.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:16713
R.C.REV. NO. 57 OF 2026
3
JUDGMENT
( Dated this the 24th day of February, 2026)
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Rent Control Revision is filed challenging the
judgment dated 29.01.2026 in R.C.A.No. 54/2025 of the
District Court, Manjeri. The principal grievance of the
revision petitioner (tenant) is that the judgment impugned
is unsustainable insofar as the Rent Control Appellate
Authority overlooked the legal contention put forth by the
revision petitioner that an order under Section 12(3) cannot
be appealed against under Section 18 of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is further
contended that the Rent Control Court ought to have
allowed I.A. No. 6/2026, which was filed by the petitioner
tenant seeking a direction to call upon the landlord to
produce the bank account details, which according to the
2026:KER:16713
R.C.REV. NO. 57 OF 2026
tenant, would have revealed that amounts towards rent
were being consistently paid by him and that no arrears of
rent existed during the relevant time.
2. It is noted that the Rent Control Appellate Au-
thority, vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the said
appeal with the reasoning as follows:
"16. In the case in hand, enough time was
given to the tenant to show cause why he should
not be evicted from the petition schedule shop
rooms and thus, Section 12(2) of the Act has been
complied with in the matter and after that the
order under Section 12(3) of the Act has been
issued by the learned Rent Control Court."
3. The reasoning, as revealed in paragraph No.16 of
the impugned judgment, in effect reveals that, though
sufficient opportunity was granted to the tenant to show
cause why he should not be evicted from the petition
scheduled building, except for the contention made in the
2026:KER:16713
R.C.REV. NO. 57 OF 2026
IA that the amounts have already been paid and that the
landlord should be called upon to produce his bank details
which would evidence payment of the arrears of rent,
nothing tangible and legally reliable was put forth by the
tenant so as to substantiate his contentions. Relying on the
decision of this Court, reported in Sidharthan v.
Hassankutty Haji [AIR 1995 Ker 122], the Rent Control
Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal inter alia
pointing out that it is up to the tenant to pay arrears or to
show cause why an order directing the tenant to put
landlord in possession should not be passed. As long as he
fails to finally convey the above, none of the contentions
put forth can be sustained.
4. We have heard Sri.Samsudin Panolan, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner.
5. We note that it was always open to the tenant to
substantiate his contention that he had been paying the
arrears of rent regularly by producing relevant evidence
2026:KER:16713
R.C.REV. NO. 57 OF 2026
regarding the payment of the said amount through his
bank account. It is fairly pointed out by the learned counsel
that such evidence had not been put forth and that, on the
contrary, the premise on which the tenant laboured was
that the burden was upon the landlord to produce evidence
in the said respect.
6. We find that the reasoning given by the Rent
Control Appellate Authority in the impugned judgment,
that, no sufficient cause has been made out by the tenant
so as to why he should not be evicted from the petition
scheduled property, is tenable and sustainable. The Rent
Control Court as well as the appellate authority have
concurrently concluded that inspite of being granted
sufficient time either to pay off the arrears or to put forth
sufficient cause of non payment, the petitioner tenant had
failed to comply with either of the options. As for the
contention put forth based on maintainability of an appeal
under Section 18 from an order under Section 12(3), in
2026:KER:16713
R.C.REV. NO. 57 OF 2026
view of the dictum laid down in Abdul Razak P.M. v.
K.C.Thomas [2022 (4) KHC 260], the same is no longer res
integra. The said contention regarding maintainability is
only to be declined.
7. At this point, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner submits that he would limit his submissions to
seeking a time period of three months for the purpose of
surrendering vacant possession of the tenant premises and
unconditionally undertakes to file an affidavit in the said
respect.
8. Mindful of the fact that the respondent had not
been heard, we permit the revision petitioner to move the
Rent Control Court with an affidavit unconditionally
undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the tenented
premises to the respondent and the Rent Control Court
shall, after hearing the other side, take a decision and allow
the said prayer subject to further conditions as deemed fit
and proper.
2026:KER:16713
R.C.REV. NO. 57 OF 2026
The Rent Control Revision is disposed of.
Sd/-
Soumen Sen
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Syam Kumar V.M.
Judge
MMG
