Supreme Court on Kerala Rent Control Act: Section 12 Procedure Need Not Be Re-Invoked at Appellate Stage.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court held that during an appeal filed under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, the landlord is not required to again file a fresh application under Section 12(1) for payment of rent arrears. The Court emphasised that the law should not be applied mechanically and that repeating the entire Section 12 procedure at the appellate stage is unnecessary and would lead to impractical and unjust outcomes. The appeal was partly allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration.

Background:

Two shop premises were leased to the respondent-tenant, who defaulted on rent payments since early 2020. The landlords initiated eviction proceedings under Section 11(2)(b) for non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller issued a direction under Section 12(1) requiring the tenant to clear arrears and pay ongoing rent. Upon the tenant’s failure, eviction was ordered under Section 12(3). The tenant then filed appeals under Section 18, but the Appellate Authority stopped proceedings due to non-compliance. The High Court set aside this stoppage, holding that a fresh Section 12(1) procedure must be undertaken in the appeal. This High Court order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations:

1. Section 12(1) requires the tenant to pay admitted arrears and continue paying rent during the pendency of eviction proceedings.
2. Section 12(3) empowers the authority to stop proceedings and order eviction if this requirement is not complied with.
3. The Supreme Court clarified that the Appellate Authority does not need to initiate Section 12(1) proceedings afresh merely because an appeal has been filed.
4. What is essential is whether the requirements of Section 12 were satisfied before passing the eviction order and whether the Appellate Authority adequately examines those findings.
5. The Court stressed that statutory interpretation must be practical and humane, not rigid or mechanical.
6. The Full Bench ruling in Zeenath Ibrahim v. Joy Daniel does not mandate repeating Section 12(1) at the appellate stage; it only states that such an application may be maintainable.

Decision:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and held that the Section 12 procedure is not required to be re-initiated in appeal. The matter was remitted to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for disposal in accordance with law.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 11 – Eviction of tenants

• Section 12 – Payment or deposit of rent during eviction proceedings

• Section 18 – Appeal under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965

Citation: 2025 INSC 1340

Case: P.U. Sidhiique & Ors. v. Zakariya

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Manmohan

Date of Decision: 21 November 2025

Civil Appeal Nos.: 13901–13902 of 2025