[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rayaroth Surendren @ R.Sureshbabu vs Parambath Abdul Kareem on 6 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
RCREV. NO. 260 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2025 IN I.A No
1/2025 IN RCA NO.90 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT -
III, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
17.10.2024 IN I.A No 6/2024 IN RCP NO.47 OF 2020 OF RENT
CONTROL COURT, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
RAYAROTH SURENDREN @ R.SURESHBABU, AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT RAYAROTH HOUSE,
MENAPRAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHOKLI, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670672
BY ADV SRI.R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
PARAMBATH ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE
ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT MOORKOTH HOUSE, P.O.PARAL,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670671
BY ADV SHRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R No.260 of 2025 :2: 2026:KER:494
ORDER
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This Rent Control Revision is filed by the tenant in R.C.P. No. 47/2020
on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thalassery, who is the appellant in
R.C.A. No. 90/2025 before the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority-
III, Thalassery.
2. The aforesaid R.C.P. was filed by the respondent herein, the
landlord, under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent and under Sections 11(2)
(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act"), seeking eviction of the
tenant. During the pendency of the Rent Control Petition, the Rent Control
Court passed an order under Section 12(1) of the Act directing the tenant to
deposit the admitted arrears of rent and to continue to deposit the rent that
may subsequently become due in respect of the tenanted building.
3. However, the tenant failed to comply with the said direction within
the time stipulated in the order. Consequently, on 18.12.2025, the Rent
Control Court passed an order of summary eviction under Section 12(3) of
the Rent Control Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred an
appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority as R.C.A. No. 90/2025.
Since there was a delay of 114 days in preferring the said appeal, a petition
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay was
also filed. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the
delay condonation petition, and consequently, the Rent Control Appeal was
R.C.R No.260 of 2025 :3: 2026:KER:494
dismissed as time-barred. Challenging the said order, the present Revision
Petition has been filed.
4. While considering whether any interference is warranted with the
order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the orders passed
under Sections 12(1) and 12(3) of the Rent Control Act, it is relevant to note
that Section 12 of the Act obliges the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears
of rent as a pre-condition for contesting the proceedings. This provision is
essentially equitable in nature and encompasses arrears accrued both prior
to the initiation of the proceedings and those that fall due during the
pendency of the litigation.
5. The order of the Rent Control Court reveals that it was passed on
the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the admissions made by the
tenant. Based on such admissions, the Rent Control Court entered a finding
regarding the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship.
6. In the Rent Control Petition, it was contended that, apart from a
shop room, a staircase room was also taken on rent by the tenant. However,
in his counter statement, the respondent contended that the petitioner's
claim that an unnumbered staircase room was also leased out to him is
absolutely false. Nevertheless, the respondent admitted the tenancy
arrangement between himself and the petitioner with respect to a shop
room bearing No. 16/193, though he denied the existence of any arrears of
rent in respect of the said shop room.
R.C.R No.260 of 2025 :4: 2026:KER:494
7. The order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(1)
of the Rent Control Act reveals that the tenant was directed to pay the
admitted arrears of rent only in respect of shop room No. 16/193. Further,
in the impugned order, it is observed that the lease agreement dated
30.04.2016 pertains exclusively to room No. 16/193 and that the staircase
room is not included in the schedule to the said agreement. The direction to
pay admitted arrears was issued after considering the fact that the
respondent/tenant failed to produce any document or receipt evidencing
payment of rent for room No. 16/193. It is also pertinent to note that the
Rent Control Court directed payment only at the rate of rent specified in the
original lease agreement. It is evident that the direction to pay admitted
arrears of rent was issued by the Rent Control Court after proper
appreciation of the materials on record and due consideration of the
pleadings of both parties.
8. The tenant having admitted the jural relationship and the rate
of rent, and having failed to produce any material whatsoever to
substantiate the plea of payment, the arrears of rent stand admitted for the
purpose of Section 12(1) of the Act. A bald plea of payment, unsupported by
any documentary evidence, cannot defeat the statutory mandate. Hence, it
is legally permissible to direct the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of
rent and to continue depositing the rent that may subsequently fall due in
respect of the shop room.
R.C.R No.260 of 2025 :5: 2026:KER:494
9. It is also apposite to note that in the order of summary eviction
passed under Section 12(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court specifically
observed that the tenant had not made any payment pursuant to the order
passed under Section 12(1). The said order further records that no
sufficient cause was shown for the non-payment of the admitted arrears of
rent.
10. It is true that the order passed under Section 12(3) was
challenged by filing an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that it
was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for such appeals and
that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. The Appellate
Authority categorically held that the reason projected by the petitioner for
the delay, namely, that he was laid up due to back pain, was neither cogent
nor convincing and did not constitute a sufficient or legally acceptable
ground to condone the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal.
11. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority dismissing the delay condonation petition and,
consequently, the appeal. Significantly, there is no apparent illegality or
irregularity in the order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section
12(3) of the Act. A reading of the said order indicates that the non-payment
of the admitted arrears of rent by the tenant was deliberate, particularly in
the absence of any convincing explanation for such non-payment.
R.C.R No.260 of 2025 :6: 2026:KER:494
12. Likewise, it cannot be said that the order of the Appellate
Authority dismissing the delay condonation petition and the consequent
dismissal of the appeal is perverse, patently illegal, or suffers from any legal
infirmity warranting interference under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act.
Resultantly, the Rent Control Revision fails and is accordingly
dismissed. However, taking note of the fervent plea made by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner, the petitioner is granted one month's
time from the date of this order to vacate the building, subject to the
condition that the tenant shall file an undertaking before the Rent Control
Court within three days from today, undertaking to vacate the building
within the time so granted.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
