In a landmark ruling with far-reaching consequences for rent control litigation in Kerala, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that landlords are not required to file a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 when a tenant challenges an eviction order under Section 12(3) before the Appellate Authority.
This decision, delivered in P.U. Sidhiq & Others v. Zakariya on 21 November 2025, restores the balance of the rent control scheme and prevents “recalcitrant tenants” from using procedural loopholes to indefinitely delay eviction.
The full judgment, spanning 27 pages, offers a sharp analysis of statutory interpretation, appellate powers, and the misuse of procedural layers by tenants who avoid paying rent while continuing to occupy valuable commercial premises.
327352025_2025-11-21
🔍 Background: Five Years of Unpaid Rent in Kochi’s Prime Commercial Zone
The dispute concerned two premium commercial shops in Kochi, taken on rent by the respondent-tenant. The rent arrears were huge:
- Shop 1: ₹57,81,126.34
- Shop 2: ₹36,86,515.27
- Total: Over ₹94 lakh in arrears as per the Rent Controller
- A civil court money decree of ₹26.44 lakh also remained unpaid
Despite owing rent since early 2020, the tenant continued to occupy both shops without paying “even a farthing”.
The Rent Controller passed eviction orders under Section 12(3) after the tenant failed to comply with deposit orders under Section 12(1).
The tenant’s appeals under Section 18 were subsequently stopped by the Appellate Authority when he again failed to deposit admitted arrears.
However, the Kerala High Court intervened, holding that the Appellate Authority could not stop the appeal without a fresh Section 12(1) application being filed before it. This led to the landlord’s appeal before the Supreme Court.
🧭 The Core Legal Question
Must a landlord file a fresh application under Section 12(1) again before the Appellate Authority, even though:
- The Rent Controller already passed an eviction order under S.12(3)
- The tenant had already defaulted
- The arrears were already adjudicated?
The Supreme Court says: an emphatic NO.
327352025_2025-11-21
⚖ Key Ruling: Section 12 Procedure Need NOT Be Repeated in Appeal
The Court held that:
1️⃣ Section 12(1) is a pre-condition to contesting an appeal
A tenant cannot even contest the appeal unless:
- He has paid or deposited all admitted arrears, and
- Continues to pay accruing rent.
Thus, the appellate stage does not reset the process.
2️⃣ Appellate Authority is not a Court of first instance
It cannot re-open issues already decided by the Rent Controller. Its role is corrective, not re-adjudicatory.
3️⃣ Repeating Section 12 procedure would create absurdity
The Court warned against “mechanical application of law” and invoked classic British and modern judicial precedents against absurd interpretation.
Quoting Dickens’ Oliver Twist, the Court remarked:
“…the law is not to be interpreted as a ‘ass’, blind to fairness and practical reality.”
4️⃣ Tenant cannot misuse appeals to avoid paying rent
The Court heavily criticised the tenant’s conduct:
- Five years of occupation without rent
- Money decree not stayed
- No payment despite repeated opportunities
The Court described this as turning “the summary procedure on its head.”
🛑 High Court’s View Set Aside
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning was:
- Contrary to the statute
- Contrary to the three-judge Bench ruling in Manik Lal Majumdar
- Pragmatically unworkable
- Enabling abusive litigation
Thus, the High Court judgment dated 22 May 2025 was quashed, and the Appellate Authority’s order was restored.
🏛 Final Directions: Tenant Must Vacate by 31 December 2025
The Supreme Court issued strong directions:
- Tenant must hand over vacant possession of both shops by 31 December 2025
- Must file an undertaking within two weeks
- Failure to file the undertaking allows immediate execution of eviction
This puts a definitive end to the prolonged dispute.
💬 Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in P.U. Sidhiq & Ors. v. Zakariya is a major development in rent control litigation. It reaffirms that courts must interpret rent control laws with empathy, pragmatism, and justice, not mechanical rigidity. Most importantly, it ensures that non-paying tenants cannot weaponise procedure to indefinitely retain possession of valuable commercial properties.
P.U. Sidhiq & Others v. Zakariya, decided on :21-11-2025