[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shine M vs M.Muhammed Ashraf on 7 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
RCREV. NO. 278 OF 2025 1 2026:KER:663
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 17TH POUSHA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 278 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2025 IN RCA NO.9 OF 2025 OF
DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
ALAPPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2024 IN RCP NO.5 OF
2024 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
SHINE M
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O MUKUNDAN PANTHRANDILCHIRA, KOMANA, AMBALAPPUZHA
P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688561
BY ADV SRI.K.K.SATHISH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
M.MUHAMMED ASHRAF
S/O MUHAMMAD KUNJU, KUNNAKKAD, KAKKAZHAM P.O,
AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688005
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.M.D.JOSEPH
SHRI.DEEPAK ASHOK KUMAR
SHRI.JESWIN JACOB
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NO. 278 OF 2025 2 2026:KER:663
ORDER
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This Rent Control Revision impugns the judgment dated 18.11.2025
of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha, in RCA No.9 of 2025.
Although various contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, we find that the Appellate Authority had confirmed the order of the
Rent Controller directing eviction of the petitioner-tenant in terms of Section
11(2)(b) of the Rent Control Act for non-payment of rent.
2. On a perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority, we find that
the order of the Rent Controller, as also that of the Appellate Authority,
proceeds on the basis that the petitioner-tenant was not able to substantiate
his contention that there had been a payment of rent and that the contention
regarding non-payment of rent was factually erroneous. Under such
circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the
Appellate Authority, and in view of the concurrent findings rendered by the
Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, we dismiss the revision petition.
The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would submit that
in the instant case, the execution petition filed for execution of the order of
the Rent Controller has resulted in an order dated 01.12.2025, whereby the
execution court found that the delivery is effected and decree is fully satisfied.
Taking note of the said submission and particularly in view of the fact that no
order has been produced before us, while dismissing this Revision Petition we
make it clear that if delivery is not effected and possession of the building is
not taken over by the landlord till date pursuant to the execution of the
RCREV. NO. 278 OF 2025 3 2026:KER:663
eviction order, the tenant shall give vacant possession of the shop to the
landlord within a period of 15 days from today.
. Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
mns
