P.U.Sidhique vs. Zakariya

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1340
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.13901-13902 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 22696-22697 of 2025)
P.U. SIDHIQUE & ORS. .…. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ZAKARIYA ..…RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
THE ISSUE AT SURFACE LEVEL AND AT DEEPER LEVEL
2. At the surface level, the issue that arises for consideration in the present
Appeals is whether the Appellants-landlords during the pendency of the Appeals
under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1965’) before the Rent Control Appellate Court
challenging an eviction order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965 has to
once again follow the procedure under Section 12 of the Act, 1965 by filing an
application under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965. However, at the deeper level,
Signature Not Verified
the issue that arises for consideration is whether laws are to be interpreted as a
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.11.21
15:42:15 IST
Reason:
force for justice or not.
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 1 of 27

FACTS
3. Briefly stated, the material facts of the present Appeals are that two shops
in the heart of Kochi, Kerala, namely, building No.61/5797 and building
No.61/5932A were taken on a monthly rent basis by the Respondent-tenant
from the Appellants-landlords.
4. It is the case of the Appellants-landlords that while the monthly rent for
the building No.61/5797 and building No.61/5932A was ₹ 55,000/- and
₹ 99,187/-, respectively during the relevant period, the Respondent-tenant has
not paid rent for building No.61/5797 since February 2020 and for building
No.61/5932A since January 2020.
5. In the year 2020, the Appellants-landlords filed two eviction petitions,
being RCP No. 187 of 2020 and RCP No.188 of 2020 under Section 11(2)(b) of
the Act, 1965 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, alleging that the
Respondent-tenant was in arrears of rent. The relevant portion of Section 11 of
the Act, 1965 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“11. Eviction of tenants.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in
execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of
this Act……
(2) (a) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Rent Control
Court for a direction in that behalf.
(b) If the Rent Control Court, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has not paid
or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days
after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or
in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following
that for which the rent is payable, it shall make an order directing the tenant to
put the landlord in possession of the building, and if it is not satisfied it shall
make an order rejecting the application thereof by him:
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 2 of 27

Provided that an application under this sub-section shall be made only if the
landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the default and the
tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent together with interest at six per cent
per annum and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within fifteen days
of the receipt of the notice or of the refusal thereof…...”
6. A recovery suit, being O.S. No.71 of 2021, was also filed by the
Appellants-landlords before the Subordinate Judges Court, Ernakulam seeking
st
recovery of the arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed on 31 March 2023 for
a sum of 21,72,360/- along with 2,81,154/- as interest and 1,91,100/- as ₹ ₹ ₹
cost totalling to 26,44,614/-. ₹
7. The said money decree has been challenged by the Respondent-tenant by
way of RFA No.269 of 2023 before the High Court of Kerala, wherein initially a
conditional stay order was granted for three months. But as the condition to
furnish security for the decretal amount was not complied with, the stay order
was not extended. Though the Appeal of the Respondent-tenant is pending, yet
there is no stay of the money decree in force.
8. Relying on the said money decree in OS No.71 of 2021, Appellants-
landlords filed I.A. No.5 of 2024 in RCP No.187 of 2020 and I.A. No.8 of 2024
in RCP No.188 of 2020 for eviction of the Respondent-tenant on the ground of
non-payment of arrears of rent under Section 12 (1) of the Act, 1965. The
relevant portion of Section 12 of the Act, 1965 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“12. Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction.
No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a
landlord under section 11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the
Rent Control Court under that section, or to prefer an appeal under section 18
against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application, unless he
has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the
appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 3 of 27

tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit,
and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due
in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the
Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be.
(2) The deposit under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time as the
Court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be
accompanied by the fee prescribed for the service of notice referred to in sub-
section (4):
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the deposit of the arrears of rent
shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the order and the time fixed for
the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than two
weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due.
(3) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control
Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant
shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an
order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building……”
th
9. On 25 September 2024, the Rent Controller passed an order under
Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965 directing the Respondent-tenant to pay the
outstanding rent of 56,81,126.34 and future rent of 1,73,479.56 per month in ₹ ₹
RCP No.187 of 2020. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“11. In the instant case, the respondent has specifically admitted that he is
continuing in possession also. Hence, in the absence of any contra materials on
record, the respondent is liable to pay the rent arrears as claimed by the
petitioners. On perusal of admitted rent agreement dated 11.06.2018 by the
respondent, it reveals that the quantum of rent and as per the said agreement,
from January 2020 to March 2020 as Rs.86,250/-pm, which comes to
Rs.2,58,750/- (Rs.86,250 3 months). From April 2020 to January 2021 at the*
rate of Rs.99,187.50/-pm, which comes to Rs.9,91,875/- (Rs.99,187.50 10*
months). From February 2021 to January 2022 at the rate of Rs.1,14,065.63/-
pm, which comes to Rs.12,54,721.93/- (Rs.1,14,065.63 11 months). Further*
from February 2022 to January 2023 at the rate of Rs.1,31,175.47/-pm, which
comes to Rs.14,42,930.17/-(Rs.1,31,175.47 11 months). From February 2023*
to January 2024 the rate of Rs.1,50,851.79/-pm, which comes Rs.16,59,369.68/-
(Rs.1,50,851.79 11 months). From February 2024 till March 2024 comes to*
Rs.1,73,479.56/- (Rs.1,73,479.56 1 month). Thus, from the above calculations*
and admissions from the available materials on record, it reveals the quantum of
rent, and the period from which rent amount is due. Hence the total amount due
amount as per the above calculations comes to Rs.57,81,126.34/- (Rupees Fifty
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 4 of 27

Seven Lakhs Eighty One Thousand One hundred and twenty six and thirty four
paisa only) i.e. from January 2020 till March 2024.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
15. Point No. 2: In the result, the petition is allowed and a direction is passed
under Section 12 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act against
the respondent as follows;
1. The respondent is hereby directed to pay admitted monthly rent
arrears of Rs.57,81,126.34/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs Eighty One
Thousand One hundred and twenty six and three four paisa Only) which
is due as on March 2024, within 30 days from today.
2. The respondent shall continue to remit the rent at the rate of
Rs.1,73,479.56/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Four
Hundred and Seventy Nine and Five Six Paisa Only) per month, which
may be subsequently fall due, within 15 days from the date of due till the
culmination of rent control proceedings.
For compliance 28.10.2024”
10. On the same date, the Rent Controller also passed an order under Section
12(1) of the Act, 1965 directing the Respondent-tenant to pay the outstanding
rent of 36,48,515.27 and future rent at the rate of 1,10,624.60 per month in ₹ ₹
RCP No.188 of 2020. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“12. In the instant case, the respondent has specifically admitted that he and his
wife is continuing in possession also. Hence, in the absence of any contra
materials on record, the respondent is liable to pay the rent arrears as claimed
by the petitioners. From January 2020 till March 2020 at the rate of Rs.55,000/-
comes to Rs.1,65,000/- (Rs.55,00,000/- 3 months). As per first agreement dated*
20.12.2009, it provides for enhancement of rent at the rate of 15% in every 11
months. Thus, from April 2020 onwards rent is enhanced to Rs.63,250/-pm. So
from April 2020 onwards till January 2021 comes to Rs.6,32,500/- (Rs.63,250 *
10 months). From February 2021 onwards till January 2022 comes to
Rs.8,00,112.50/- (Rs.72,737.50 11 months). From February 2022 onwards till*
January 2023 comes to Rs.9,20,129.43/- (Rs.83,648.13 11 months). From*
February 2023 till January 2024 comes to Rs.10,58,148.74/- (Rs.96,195.34 11*
months). From February 2024 till March 2024 comes to Rs.1,10,624.60/-
(Rs.1,10,624.60 1 month). Thus from the above calculations and admissions*
from the available materials on record, it reveals the quantum of rent, and the
period from which rent amount is due. Hence the total amount due as on date of
filing of this petition, i.e. from January 2020 till March 2024 is seen as
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 5 of 27

Rs.36,86,515.27/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty Six thousand five hundred
and fifteen and twenty seven paisa only).
xxxx xxxx xxxx
16. Point No.3 : In the result, the petition is allowed and a direction is passed
under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act against
the respondent as follows;
1. The respondent is hereby directed to pay monthly rent arrears of
Rs.36,86,515.27/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty Six thousand five
hundred and fifteen twenty seven paisa only) which is due as on March
2024, i.e till the month of filing of this application, within 30 days from
today.
2. The respondent shall continue to remit the rent at the rate of
Rs.1,10,624.60/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand Six hundred Twenty
four and Sixty paisa only) per month, which may be subsequently fall
due, within 15 days from the date of due till the culmination of rent
control proceedings.
For compliance 28.10.2024.”
11. Since the Respondent-tenant did not pay/deposit any amount in pursuance
of the aforesaid orders within the stipulated time under Section 12(1) of the Act,
1965, the Rent Controller passed orders under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965
th
dated 07 November 2024 stopping further proceedings in RCP No.187 of 2020
as well as RCP No.188 of 2020 along with directions to put the Appellant-
th
landlord in possession of both the shops. Considering that the orders dated 7
November 2024 passed under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965 in RCP Nos.187
and 188 of 2020 are similar, the relevant portion of the order in one of the cases,
namely, RCP No.187 of 2020 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“3. In the instant case, more than one and half month has elapsed after the
order has been passed. So far respondent did not complied or show cause.
Hence I am of the view that, the respondent having failed to comply with the
order in IA 5/2024 and having failed to show sufficient cause for not depositing
rent arrears in liable to suffer consequence under Section 12(3) of the Act.
Hence an order is passed under Section 12(3) of the act stopping all the further
proceedings in the rent control petition and directing the respondent to put the
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 6 of 27

petitioner in vacant possession of the building forthwith. RCP is closed
accordingly.”
th
12. Against the eviction orders dated 7 November 2024 passed under
Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965, the Respondent-tenant filed Appeals being RCA
No.71 of 2024 and RCA No.72 of 2024 before the Rent Control Appellate
Authority under Section 18 of the Act, 1965. The relevant portion of Section 18
of the Act, 1965 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“18. Appeal.—(I) (a) The Government may, by general or special order notified
in the Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities not below the rank of a
Subordinate Judge the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this
Act in such areas or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the
order……”
13. As in the meanwhile, the Appellants-landlords had filed execution
petitions, the Respondent-tenant apprehending that if the possession of shops
was taken before the applications for stay were considered, filed petitions being
OP (RC No.50 of 2025 and 51 of 2025) before the High Court of Kerala. The
st
Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala vide order dated 21 February 2025
disposed of the aforesaid petitions with a direction to the Rent Control Appellate
Authority to dispose of the stay applications within three weeks. Till then, the
proceedings in the execution petition were directed to be deferred. The order
st
dated 21 February 2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“The petitioner in both case is the tenant, challenging the order of eviction
passed by the Rent Control Court and preferred appeals. The appeals have been
numbered as RCA Nos.71/2024 and 72/2024. The petitioner has moved
applications for stay. The applications are pending. In the meanwhile, the
landlord laid execution petitions. The petitioner apprehends that if delivery is
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 7 of 27

effected before application for stay is considered, the appeals will be rendered
infructuous.
2. Having considered the facts and circumstances, we direct the Rent Control
Appellate Authority, Ernakulam to dispose the stay applications within three
weeks. Till then we order that the proceedings in the execution petition be
deferred. The Rent Control Appellate Authority shall also dispose the appeals
before the summer holidays, 2025. These Original Petitions are disposed of
accordingly.”
th
14. On 11 March 2025, the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed orders
styled as “Orders on deposit of admitted rent” directing the Respondent-tenant
th
to deposit the admitted rent on or before 15 March 2025 as a pre-condition to
hear the Appeals. The Appellate Authority specifically observed that ‘ since no
application is filed under Section 12(1) of the Act before this Court, this Court
is not passing any order regarding payment of subsequent arrears after the
filing of the appeal by granting time for four weeks….’. It was made clear by the
Appellate Authority that ‘ in case of non-depositing the rent as mentioned above,
this Court will stop hearing the appeal and consequential orders will be
passed’ .
15. On the Respondent-tenant’s failure to deposit the rent within the
th
stipulated time, the Appellate Authority passed judgments dated 19 March
2025 in RCA No.71 of 2024 (against RCP No.188 of 2020) and RCA No.72 of
2024 (against RCP No.187 of 2020) stopping hearing of the Appeals and
th
directing the Respondent-tenant to comply with the orders dated 07 November
2024 passed by the Rent Controller under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965. Since
th
the judgments dated 19 March 2025 in RCA No.71 of 2024 and RCA No.72 of
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 8 of 27

2024 are similar, the relevant portion of the judgment in RCA No.71 of 2024 is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“15…..So far the appellant has not deposited any amount. In this matter also he
is not ready to deposit the rent as ordered by the rent control court. Without
depositing the said amount the appeal cannot be considered on merits in view of
the aforesaid binding judicial precedents. The appellant is a person who is not
even ready to furnish security to comply with the conditional order of stay
passed in the appeal against the judgment and decree in the above suit. In this
matter from the above discussions and also from the order of the trial court it is
clear that there are prima facie materials available on record disclosing arrears
of rent…..This court should also bear in mind that once an order is passed
under S.12(3), subsequent payment made by the tenant would not absolve him
from the statutory consequences. The question of enlargement of time applies
only during the pendency of a petition filed under S.12(1) and till an order is
passed under S.12(3). (Haridas P. R. v. Manoj 2025 KHC 1613). Hence time
cannot be extended in appeal.
16……Hence the appellant was directed to deposit the admitted rent on or
before 15/03/2025. The appellant did not comply with the order. The appellant
had only submitted about an order of stay passed which was never passed and
the same was conceded by him later. In these circumstances the hearing of the
appeal is stopped and the appellant/ tenant is directed to comply with order of
the Rent control Act. In view of the order of stay passed by the Hon'ble High
Court in the above matter the execution of order is deferred till the vacating of
the stay by the Hon'ble High Court.
In the result, the hearing of the appeal is stopped and the appellant/ tenant is
directed to comply with order of the Rent Control Court. In view of the order of
stay passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the above matter the execution of
order is deferred till the vacating the stay by the Hon'ble High Court. The
respondents are entitled to get costs through out the appeal.”
16. The Respondent-tenant filed revision petitions before the High Court
being RCREV Nos.102 of 2025 and 114 of 2025. The said revision petitions
were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order
nd
dated 22 May 2025 observing as under:-
“…..It is unfortunate that the Appellate Authority, without looking at the Larger
bench decision as well as the Division Bench decision of this court, proceeded to
stop the proceedings in the appeal, holding that the tenant failed to deposit the
rent arrears as ordered by the Rent Control Court in proceedings initiated under
Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), even though no such application was filed
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 9 of 27

before the Appellate Court under Section 12(1) of the Act. If there was an
application filed under Section 12(1) of the Act, no doubt the Appellate
Authority could have passed an order stopping the proceedings, consequent
upon non-compliance with the direction under Section 12(1) of the Act…….
2. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlord tried to rely on the Larger
Bench decision of this Court in Zeenath Ibrahim v. Joy Daniel [2024 (7) KHC
195]. In fact, the Larger Bench only decided the question whether an
application under Section 12(1) of the Act is maintainable in an appeal
preferred under Section 18 of the Act, challenging an order passed under
Section 12(3) of the Act. The Larger Bench held that such an application is
maintainable. That means, in order to stop all the proceedings in an appeal
under Section 18 of the Act, there must be an application under Section 12(1) of
the Act and without such an application under Section 12(1) of the Act, the
Appellate Court cannot dispose of the appeal or stop the proceedings based on
the orders passed by the Rent Control Court. It is possible that a perverse order
may be passed by the Rent Control Court, and the Appellate Court will have to
apply its mind under Section 12(1) of the Act to decide whether a direction to
pay the admitted arrears of rent should be passed or not. It is for the Appellate
Court to decide whether such a direction under Section 12(1) should be passed.
If such an application is not filed, the Appellate Court will have to decide the
matter on its merit in regard to the legality of the order passed under Section
12(3) of the Act. Without such an application, the Court cannot stop the entire
proceedings and reject the case of the tenant. The Appellate Authority has
bypassed all the procedures contemplated under the law while deciding this
appeal. In fact, the matter ought to have been decided on its merit itself instead
of passing such an order. The appellate authority could have disposed of the
appeal itself on merits within the time taken by it to pass the impugned order.
We deprecate the practice of the Rent Control Appellate Authority adopting such
a shortcut method overlooking the decisions of the Larger Bench and Division
Bench of this Court.
3. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is restored
to files. We direct the Appellate Authority dispose of the appeal in accordance
with law within four weeks from the date of appearance. However, if any
application is filed under Section 12(1) of the Act, the same shall also be
considered in accordance with law…..”
nd
17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22 May 2025, the
Appellants-landlords filed the present Special Leave Petitions.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-LANDLORDS
18. Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the Appellants-landlords
raised an issue as to how many times should the landlord file an application
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 10 of 27

under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965 to stop the proceedings for not paying the
admitted arrears of rent?
19. He submitted that the matter in issue is covered by the three Judges’
judgment of this Court in Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. vs. Gouranga Chandra
Dey & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 400 dealing with Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1975, which is identically worded to Section 12 of the Act, 1965
in question. He pointed out that this Court in the said judgment has held that,
‘arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due’ means the inference of
admission from the material on record and in the present case, the material on
record shows that there is a money decree qua arrears of rent which continues to
operate. He further submitted that the expression ‘ prefer an Appeal’ means the
payment or deposit as a pre-condition for filing a memorandum of appeal. The
relevant portion of the three Judges’ judgment in Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors.
(supra) relied upon by learned senior counsel for the Appellants-landlords is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“6. …..The expression “all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due”, if
interpreted literally, would mean that unless the tenant specifically admits any
arrears of rent to be due to the landlord, the condition to make the payment of
arrears of rent in order to contest the original proceedings before the Rent
Control Court or to prefer an appeal as provided under Section 13 of the Act
would not arise. The High Court in Binapani Roy case [(1994) 1 Gau LR 98]
has held that giving literal meaning to the words “admitted by the tenant to be
due” would frustrate the provisions of Section 13 of the Act and make the same
nugatory or otiose. The object of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act is to
avoid litigation for realisation of arrears of rent which is likely to accumulate
during the course of litigation, which may be a long period and also to deter the
tenant from resorting to an unfair practice to use and occupy the tenanted
premises without payment of any rent so long as the litigation continues. The
High Court was of the opinion that the reasonable meaning of the words
“admitted by the tenant to be due” is the inference of admission from the
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 11 of 27

material on record. If the material on record prima facie discloses the admission
of relationship of landlord and tenant and the rate of monthly rent payable, the
tenant would be required to pay or deposit arrears of rent and continue payment
of current rent during the pendency of the litigation, as enjoined under Section
13 of the Act. Dharmadhikari, J. has expressed his concurrence with the
aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in the
case of Binapani Roy [(1994) 1 Gau LR 98] . We are also of the opinion that the
view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court on this point is perfectly
sound as giving a literal meaning to the expression “all arrears of rent admitted
by the tenant to be due” may defeat the very object of enacting Section 13 of the
Act and an unscrupulous tenant may continue to enjoy the premises without
payment of any rent to the landlord by protracting the litigation and the landlord
may have to wait till the final decision of the case to recover his dues by taking
execution proceedings.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
8. …..The full play and effect cannot be given to sub-sections (2) and (3) of
Section 13 of the Act if the expression “prefer an appeal” is interpreted to mean
that the payment to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Control Court of all
arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due, is a precondition for filing a
memorandum of appeal. However, if such payment or deposit of arrears of the
admitted rent is not held to be a precondition for mere filing or presentation of
memorandum of appeal, it will be possible for the Appellate Authority to give
full effect to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act.

20. He emphasised that the total amount due in respect of RCP No.187 of
2020 is 56,77,758.07 and total rent due in respect of RCP No.188 of 2020 is ₹
₹ 89,03,758.42 totalling to 1,45,81,516.49. ₹ According to him, the judgments
of the Rent Control Appellate Authority stopping the hearing of the Appeals
were well founded and have been erroneously set aside by the impugned
nd
judgment dated 22 May 2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 12 of 27

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-TENANT
21. Per contra, Mr. P.B. Krishnan, learned senior counsel for Respondent-
tenant submitted that the power conferred under Section 12 of the Act, 1965 is
of drastic nature and is to be exercised in a summary manner. According to
him, as it is a concurrent power which can be exercised by either the Rent
Controller or the Appellate Authority by following the prescribed procedure, the
Appellate Authority is obliged to follow the entire procedure once again under
Section 12 of the Act, 1965. He submitted that if the procedure is not followed,
the summary final order would be without jurisdiction.
22. Consequently, according to him, in the present case where an application
under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965 was not filed before the Rent Control
Appellate Authority, there was no scope for conducting an enquiry and/or
passing a summary order under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965. In support of his
submission, he relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in
Zeenath Ibrahim & Ors. vs. Joy Daniel , 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 6489 , wherein
it has been held as under:-
“21. In conclusion, we answer the reference as follows:
(i) An order passed in exercise of the power under Section 12(3) of the Rent
Control Act is essentially an order passed on an application under Section 11
and, as such, falls within the purview of the expression “any order” in Section
12.
(ii) An order passed under Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act during the
course of eviction proceedings under Section 11 has all the characteristics,
trappings and effect of a final order passed under Section 11.
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 13 of 27

(iii) An application under Section 12(1) of the Rent Control Act is maintainable
in an appeal filed under Section 18 against an order passed under Section
12(3).
(iv) An application under Section 12(1) of the Rent Control Act is maintainable
not only in appeal from a final order of eviction under Section 11 but also in
appeals arising from other types of orders passed during the course of
proceedings under Section 11 before the Rent Control Court.
(v) The judgments in City Coop. Hospital case, R. Sulaiman Sahib
case and Mohd. Shameer case do not lay down the correct law and are hereby
overruled.
Relief
22. In view of the declaration of law that an application under Section 12(1)
of the Rent Control Act is perfectly maintainable in an appeal filed against an
order passed under Section 12(3), the judgment of the Full Bench in Joy Daniel
is reversed…...”
23. In any event, he submitted that a summary order under Section 12(3) of
the Act, 1965 stopping the procedure and evicting the tenant could have been
passed by the Appellate Authority only after giving thirty days’ time once again
to the Respondent-tenant to deposit or show cause. He pointed out that in the
present cases, the Appellate Authority had given only four days’ time to
pay/deposit the outstanding arrears of rent. Therefore, he submitted that the
Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 12(3) of the
Act, 1965.
24. He further submitted that the question whether an Appellate Authority can
prevent a tenant from preferring an Appeal/refusing to hear/strike of an Appeal
arose in a case under Section 13 of the Tripura Building (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1975 which is para materia to Section 12 of the Act, 1965, except
the period is forty-five (45) days in the Tripura Building (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1975 and four (4) weeks in the Act, 1965. He stated that two
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 14 of 27

Judges of this Court differed on the interpretation of the expression ‘ prefer an
Appeal ’ in Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. vs. Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors.,
(2004) 12 SCC 448 and the matter was referred to a larger Bench. The relevant
portion of the differing opinions is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“20. In view of the discussion made and reasons stated, the question set out
above is answered in the negative meaning thereby payment or deposit of all
arrears of rent admitted is mandatory before preferring an appeal by a tenant
under Section 20 of the Act. Hence, the appeal is dismissed finding no merit in
it, with no order as to costs.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
56. As a result of the detailed discussion aforesaid of the provisions under
consideration before us, I have come to the conclusion that a tenant can file or
present a memo of appeal within the prescribed period of thirty days excluding
the time for obtaining certified copy of the order in accordance with sub-section
(1) of Section 20 but until and unless he seeks an order from the Appellate
Authority in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 13 and makes deposit of
all arrears of rent and continues to pay future rent in the manner and within the
time directed by the Appellate Authority, he would not be entitled to prosecute
the appeal and obtain any interim or final relief against the order of the Rent
Control Court as is contemplated in sub-sections (2) and (3) respectively of the
said section.
57. In the result, the appeal preferred by the tenant is allowed. The impugned
order passed by the Division Bench is set aside. The case is sent back to the
Appellate Authority with liberty to the tenant to invoke provisions of sub-section
(2) of Section 13 as interpreted above.
ORDER OF THE COURT
58. In view of divergency of opinion on the question whether an appeal can be
preferred by a tenant under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1975 (for short “the Act”) without making payment or deposit of
admitted arrears of rent, as stated in Section 13(1) of the Act, the civil appeal is
to be posted before a larger Bench, after obtaining the order of the Hon'ble
Chief Justice."
25. He stated that the three Judges’ Bench of this Court in Manik Lal
Majumdar & Ors. (supra) resolved the conflict by holding that there is no legal
impediment for presenting an Appeal without deposit of rent and the Appellate
Authority could exercise jurisdiction to order a summary eviction by following
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 15 of 27

the procedure. Thus, according to him, the Appeal could not be struck off/ or
stopped without following the prescribed procedure once again under Section
12 of the Act, 1965. The relevant portion of the three Judges’ judgment in
Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. (supra) relied upon by learned senior counsel for
the Respondent-tenant is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“11……We are, therefore, of the opinion that on a conjoint reading of all the
provisions of the Act and giving a fair and reasonable interpretation thereto, an
appeal under Section 20 of the Act may be filed or presented without payment to
the landlord or deposit with the Appellate Authority of all arrears of rent
admitted by the tenant to be due, and it cannot be held to be incompetent.
However, it will be open to the Appellate Authority not to proceed with the
hearing of the appeal or to pass any interim order in favour of the appellant
tenant until he has paid or deposited all arrears of rent admitted by him to be
due, and for such purposes the Appellate Authority shall have all the powers
under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act.
12. The view taken by the Appellate Authority that as the appellant (tenant) had
not paid or deposited all arrears of rent admitted by him to be due the appeal
filed by him was incompetent is, therefore, clearly unsustainable in law and the
revisional authority rightly set aside the said order and remanded the matter for
fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority. The Division Bench of the High
Court, under the impugned order, has held that the reference to larger Bench
made by the learned Single Judge was not called for and directed the writ
petition to be placed for hearing on merits before the learned Single Judge.
Since we have held that the appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of
the Rent Control Court could not be rejected only on the ground that the
admitted arrears of rent had not been paid or deposited, the hearing of the writ
petition now by the learned Single Judge would entail waste of public time…..”
26. He submitted that the High Court in the impugned orders has directed the
Appeals to be disposed of only reserving the liberty of the Appellants-landlords
to invoke the procedure under Section 12 of the Act, 1965. He submitted that
the impugned order is consistent with the law laid down by the larger Bench of
the High Court and the judgment of the three Judges in Manik Lal Majumdar
& Ors. (supra).
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 16 of 27

REJOINDER ARGUMENTS
27. In rejoinder, Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel submitted that
when the deposit/payment of outstanding rent is a pre-condition for filing an
Appeal as held by the three Judges’ bench in Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors.
(supra), there is no question of following the procedure under Section 12 of the
Act, 1965 once again. He submitted that the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala
High Court in Zeenath Ibrahim (supra) is required to be overruled to the above
extent.
REASONING
IN AN APPEAL A FRESH APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF THE
ACT, 1965 IS NOT MANDATORY
28. As articulated hereinabove, the primary issue that arises for consideration
in the present cases is whether the Section 12 procedure has to be repeated
before the Rent Control Appellate Authority while hearing an Appeal
challenging an eviction order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965 by the
Rent Control Court?
29. Upon an analysis of the Act, 1965, this Court is of the view that Section
12(1) specifically stipulates that no tenant shall be entitled to contest either an
eviction petition before the Rent Control Court or an Appeal before the Rent
Control Appellate Authority unless he has paid or deposited with the Court, as
the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due and
continues to pay the rent which may subsequently become due. In the event of
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 17 of 27

non-deposit/non-payment of rent without any sufficient cause, Section 12(3)
empowers the Courts to stop all proceedings and make an order directing the
tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Since the power to evict
under Section 12(3) is by operation of law, not even an application for eviction
is required to be filed by the landlord.
30. This Court is further of the view that as the Rent Control Appellate
Authority is not the Court of first instance, it only tests the exercise of
jurisdiction and power by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority is
not required to re-determine the issue of default or the outstanding amount of
rent. It has only to examine as to whether the Rent Control Court has erred in
law or in facts and/or has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law.
31. While hearing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has full discretion to
pass any order in accordance with law, including an order dismissing the Appeal
and/or extending the time to deposit/pay the arrears of rent, or if it finds
substantial merit in the Appeal, it may issue notice and unconditionally stay the
impugned order of eviction, or if it finds that the Appeal raises an argument
which is plausible but improbable, it may direct the Appellant to pay/deposit the
amount determined by the Rent Controller pending the hearing of the Appeal.
Though the power of the Appellate Authority cannot be put in a straitjacket, yet
normally speaking, a tenant must be directed to pay/deposit the amount
determined by the Rent Controller before an Appeal is heard by the Appellate
Authority and that too when a money decree has been passed by a Civil Court
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 18 of 27

which has not been stayed by the Appellate Court. No doubt, a money decree
can be stayed in exceptional cases like where the decree is egregiously perverse
or riddled with patent illegalities or facially untenable and/or such other
exceptional causes similar in nature.[See: Lifestyle Equities & Anr. vs. Amazon
Technologies Inc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2153 ]. But in the present case, no
such exceptional case has been found by the Appellate Court.
32. The Respondent-tenant’s submission that in an Appeal challenging an
eviction order under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965 a fresh application under
Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965 is mandatory, is contrary to the explicit language
of Sections 12 and 18 of the Act, 1965. This Court is of the view that Sections
12(1) and 12(3) procedure is to be primarily followed by the Rent Controller. It
is essentially in cases where supervening events have taken place during the
pendency of Appeal, that the parties have the liberty to file an application under
Section 12 of the Act, 1965 once again before the Appellate Authority like
where rent has been paid till the date of filing of the Appeal, but by the time the
Appeal has matured for hearing, further rent has accrued, which has not been
paid. In such a case, it would be open to the Appellate Authority to entertain a
fresh application under Section 12(1) by the landlord and decide the same in
accordance with the procedure stipulated under Section 12 of the Act, 1965.
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 19 of 27

LAWS ARE TO BE INTERPRETED WITH EMPATHY AND PRAGMATISM
AND AS A FORCE OF JUSTICE, NOT ABSURDITY
33. This Court is of the opinion that if the High Court’s reasoning in the
impugned order (that the Section 12 procedure has to be repeated before the
Rent Control Appellate Authority) is accepted, it would not only be contrary to
the spirit of the statute in question, but it would also lead to an absurd and
unjust result, inasmuch as, it is akin to suggesting that in an Appeal challenging
an order decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (‘CPC’), the Respondent-decree holder would have to once again file
an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC before the Appellate Authority or if
an Appeal is filed challenging an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule
11 CPC, then the Respondent-defendant would have to file the application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC once again before the Appellate Court.
34. While it is true that it is not for the Courts to reject or refuse to give effect
to legislation merely on the grounds that the clear meaning of the legislation
appears absurd to the judiciary, when forced to construe a provision, the
meaning of which is open to question they will lean against any construction
that would produce a result which appears to them to be absurd or unjust. As the
majority held in R vs. Alfred Skeen & Freeman, (1859) 28 LJMC 91 “ if the
language employed admit of two constructions, and according to one of them
the enactment would be absurd and mischievous, and according to the other it
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 20 of 27

would be reasonable and wholesome, we surely ought to put the latter
construction upon it as that which the legislature intended… ”
35. It is settled law that the more absurd a suggested conclusion of
construction is, the more the Court will lean against that conclusion that is
ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute. (See : Emmerich
Hatzl vs. XL Insurance Co Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 223, Maloba vs. Waltham
Forest London Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ. 1281, Barclays
Mercantile Business Finance Ltd vs. Mawson [2004] UKHL 51, Project Blue
Ltd vs. Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2018] UKSC
30, The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs vs. Jason
Wilkes [2022] EWCA Civ 1612 ). According to Craies on Legislation,
Thirteenth Edition , one of the most honest and revealing judicial statements
that illustrates the reality of the “ presumption against absurdity” is found in the
brief observation of Lord Saville agreeing with his colleagues in the case of R.
(on the application of Noone) v Governor of HMP Drake Hall [2010] UKSC
30 . Lord Saville says simply:
“ I would allow this appeal. For the reasons given by Lord Phillips
and Lord Mance. I have no doubt that by one route or another the
legislation must be construed so as to avoid what would otherwise
produce irrational and indefensible results that Parliament could
not have intended.”
36. This Court is of the view that human beings, and not artificial intelligence
or computers, are entrusted with the duties of administration of justice as laws
are to be interpreted with empathy and pragmatism and as a force of justice, not
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 21 of 27

absurdity. The danger of mechanical application of law, blind to practical
reality, was famously encapsulated by Charles Dickens in the classic ‘Oliver
Twist’ , where Mr. Bumble lamented, “If the law supposes that …the law is a
ass,” critiquing legal formalism that disregards common sense and fairness.
Consequently, Courts must balance textual fidelity with interpretive wisdom,
ensuring that laws are not applied mechanically without considering context or
equity; but serve as true vehicles for the administration of justice.
37. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that if the view of the High
Court as articulated in the impugned order is accepted, it would turn the
summary procedure ‘ on its head ’ and delay the eviction of an ‘ intransigent and
recalcitrant tenant’ .
MANIK LAL MAJUMDAR DOES NOT STIPULATE THAT THE ENTIRE
PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 12 HAS TO BE REPEATED IN APPEAL
38. Also, the three Judges’ judgment of this Court in Manik Lal Majumdar
& Ors. (supra) only states that the Rent Control Appellate Authority while
hearing the Appeal has the discretion either not to proceed with the hearing till
the amount directed by the Rent Controller is deposited or to pass any interim
order in favour of the Respondent-tenant, including dispensation of payment of
arrears of rent.
39. However, this Court is of the view that it is one thing to say that the
Appellate Authority has the power to dispense with pre-deposit of arrears of rent
and quite another thing to say that the entire procedure under Section 12 has to
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 22 of 27

be mandatorily repeated before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Upon
careful reading of the three Judges’ judgment in Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors.
(supra), this Court is of the opinion that the said judgment cannot be a basis for
the proposition that the entire procedure under Section 12 has to be repeated
before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
40. Further, the Respondent-tenant’s reliance on the expression in the said
judgment ‘ and for such purpose the Appellate Authority shall have all the
powers under sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act ’ is misconceived
as it is not permissible to pick out a word or sentence diverse from the context.
This Court is of the view that the aforesaid expression only enables the
Appellate Authority to pass any order it deems appropriate in the facts of each
case. Moreover, it is settled law that a judgment is not to be read like an
Enactment or Statute. (See : Rekha Mukherjee vs. Ashish Kumar Das and
Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 483, Escorts Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Delhi-II, (2004) 8 SCC 335, State of Orissa and Ors. vs. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006)
1 SCC 275, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747,
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. Allied Air-Conditioning Corpn.
(Regd.), (2006) 7 SCC 735 )
41. Additionally, this Court is of the view that as the Rent Control Appellate
Authority has full power to examine the legality and validity of the eviction
order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965, to
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 23 of 27

insist upon the Appellant-landlord to repeat the procedure under Section 12 of
the Act, 1965 would be a superfluous and unnecessary exercise.
THE FULL BENCH JUDGMENT ONLY CLARIFIES THAT A SECTION 12(1)
APPLICATION IS MAINTAINABLE IN AN APPEAL
42. There is also no such requirement stipulated in the Full Bench judgment
of the Kerala High Court in Zeenath Ibrahim (supra). The Full Bench of the
Kerala High Court only clarifies in its conclusion, in particular, in directions
(iii) and (iv) that an application under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965 is
maintainable in an Appeal filed under Section 18 of the Act, 1965 challenging
any type of order passed by the Rent Control Court during the course of the
proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, 1965. This enabling power which may
be required to be exercised in myriad of circumstances like subsequent events
cannot be read to mean that the Full Bench has directed that in every Appeal
filed under Section 18 challenging an eviction order on the ground of non-
payment of rent under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965, the entire procedure
under Section 12 of the Act, 1965 has to be repeated by the Appellant-landlord,
even if he has succeeded before the Rent Controller.
THERE IS NO PROVISION THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS TO
GIVE FOUR WEEKS’ TIME TO PAY/DEPOSIT THE OUTSTANDING RENT
43. The Respondent-tenant’s submission that in the present case, the Rent
Control Appellate Authority has committed a grave error in law, inasmuch as, it
has given only four (4) days’ time to vacate instead of four (4) weeks’ time as
stipulated in Section 12(3), is contrary to law as nowhere the Act, 1965
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 24 of 27

stipulates that even the Appellate Authority has to mandatorily give four weeks’
time to the Respondent-tenant to pay/deposit the outstanding rent determined by
the Rent Controller. Additionally, this Court is of the opinion that as the
Appellate Authority does not have to pass an order under Section 12(3) once
again, it is not obliged to give four weeks’ time to deposit the outstanding rent.
44. One should not forget that the eviction order has been passed by the Rent
Control Court in the present case only due to failure of the Respondent-tenant to
pay the admitted rent within the stipulated time.
45. In any event, the said argument of the Respondent-tenant ‘ holds no
water ’, inasmuch as, more than seven months have passed since the Appellate
Authority gave time to the Respondent-tenant to pay the admitted dues and no
amount has been paid/deposited till date.
RESPONDENT-TENANT IS OCCUPYING TWO PREMIER SHOPS IN THE
HEART OF KOCHI WITHOUT PAYING ANY RENT FOR THE LAST FIVE
YEARS
46. Moreover, on facts, the admitted position that emerges is that the
Respondent-tenant is occupying two premier shops in the heart of Kochi, Kerala
‘ without paying a farthing ’ for the last more than five years and that too despite
a money decree in OS No.71 of 2021 staring him on the face and that too
without any stay in appeal.
47. Further, though Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, 1965 provide for a
summary procedure for eviction of tenants who fail to pay or deposit the rent
without sufficient cause, the Respondent-tenant in the present case by advancing
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 25 of 27

procedural arguments has turned the summary procedure ‘ on its head ’ and
managed to occupy the premises for several years without paying/depositing
any rent.
CONCLUSION
48. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the Division Bench of the
High Court by way of the impugned order has arbitrarily and contrary to the
intent and object of the Act, 1965 set aside the order of the Appellate Authority.
nd
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 22 May, 2025 passed by
th
the Division Bench is set aside and the judgment and order dated 19 March,
2025 passed by the Appellate Authority is restored. The Respondent-tenant is
directed to handover vacant physical possession of the shops in question to the
st
Appellants-landlords on or before 31 December 2025 provided he files an
undertaking within two weeks with the Registry of this Court to pay the
outstanding arrears and handover peaceful physical possession by the aforesaid
date. In the event of failure to file the undertaking within stipulated time,
th
Appellants-landlords shall be at liberty to execute the eviction decree dated 19
March 2025 forthwith.
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 26 of 27

49. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the appeals are, accordingly,
allowed.
…………………….J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
……………….J.
[MANMOHAN]
New Delhi;
November 21, 2025
SLP(C) Nos.22696-22697 of 2025 Page 27 of 27