Fresh Section 12(1) Application Not Mandatory in Rent Control Appeals; Appellate Authority Need Not Repeat Summary Procedure

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan heard appeals arising from a Division Bench order of the Kerala High Court that set aside the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s decision to stop appeals for non-deposit of admitted rent. The appeals concerned whether landlords were obliged, during the pendency of appeals under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, to once again invoke the summary procedure under Section 12 by filing fresh applications under Section 12(1).

The Supreme Court allowed the landlords’ appeals, set aside the High Court order dated 22 May 2025, and restored the Appellate Authority’s judgments dated 19 March 2025 which had stopped the hearing of the appeals for non-compliance with Section 12 directions. The Court held that a fresh application under Section 12(1) was not mandatory in every appeal and that the Appellate Authority’s role was to test the exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Control Court rather than to re-determine the default or quantum of rent. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further emphasised that “laws are to be interpreted with empathy and pragmatism and as a force of justice, not absurdity.”

Background The disputes involved two premier shops in central Kochi (buildings No.61/5797 and No.61/5932A) let on monthly rent. The landlords stated that rent ceased to be paid from January–February 2020 onwards. In 2020 they filed eviction petitions under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act; they also obtained a money decree in O.S. No.71 of 2021 for recovery of arrears (decretal sum ~₹21.7 lakh, total ~₹26.44 lakh). Relying on that decree the landlords filed interim applications under Section 12(1) seeking deposit/payment of admitted arrears; the Rent Controller directed deposit of large sums and, when the tenant did not comply, passed orders under Section 12(3) on 7 November 2024 stopping proceedings and directing eviction.

The tenant preferred appeals (RCA Nos.71–72 of 2024) under Section 18. The Rent Control Appellate Authority required deposit of admitted rent as a pre-condition and on non-deposit stopped hearing the appeals on 19 March 2025. The tenant obtained interim relief from the Kerala High Court directing the Appellate Authority to decide stay applications; subsequently a Division Bench allowed revision petitions and set aside the Appellate Authority’s orders on 22 May 2025, holding that the Appellate Authority could not stop proceedings under Section 12(3) unless a fresh Section 12(1) application had been filed in appeal. The landlords challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

On arguments, the Supreme Court reviewed authorities including the three-Judge decision in Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. v. Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors. (2005) and the Kerala Full Bench in Zeenath Ibrahim v. Joy Daniel (2024). The Court held that Manik Lal Majumdar did not require repetition of the entire Section 12 procedure in every appeal; the Full Bench only clarified that a Section 12(1) application was maintainable in an appeal where supervening events rendered it appropriate. The Court observed that normally a tenant ought to be directed to deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller before the appeal was heard, especially where a civil money decree stood unsuspended, but that the Appellate Authority need not mechanically require a fresh Section 12(1) filing when its function was to examine the legality of the Rent Controller’s order. The Court found no exceptional circumstances that would permit the tenant to retain possession without paying admitted dues for years.

Resulting directions required the respondent-tenant to hand over vacant physical possession of the shops on or before 31 December 2025, provided he filed an undertaking within two weeks to pay the outstanding arrears and to hand over peaceful possession by that date. Failure to file the undertaking would permit the landlords to execute the eviction decree forthwith. The appeals were allowed.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL Nos.13901-13902 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 22696-22697 of 2025) Case Title: P.U. SIDHIQUE & ORS. v. ZAKARIYA Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Senior Counsel (for Appellants‑landlords) For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.B. Krishnan, Senior Counsel (for Respondent‑tenant)