Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-013901-013902 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 32735/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Concurring: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
Overrules the Kerala High Court’s order dated 22 May 2025 Affirms Manik Lal Majumdar v. Gouranga Chandra Dey |
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 |
| Questions of Law | Whether fresh application under S.12(1) is mandatory before the appellate authority when challenging a S.12(3) eviction |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The tenant withheld rent for two shops in Kochi since early 2020. Landlords obtained a money decree in OS No. 71/2021, then eviction orders under S.12(1) and, on non-payment, S.12(3). Appeals under S.18 were stayed for non-deposit. The Kerala High Court set aside that stay; this appeal challenges that order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Rent Control Appellate Authorities and other High Courts |
| Overrules | Kerala High Court judgment dated 22 May 2025 in RCREV Nos. 102/2025 & 114/2025 |
| Distinguishes | Full Bench Kerala High Court in Zeenath Ibrahim v. Joy Daniel (2024 SCC OnLine Ker 6489) |
| Follows | Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. vs. Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A fresh application under Section 12(1) is not a pre-condition in every appeal under Section 18 challenging an eviction under Section 12(3).
- The appellate authority’s role is to test the Rent Controller’s order; it need not repeat the entire Section 12 summary process.
- Section 12(1) applications may be entertained on appeal only to address supervening events (e.g., subsequent rent accrual).
- Mechanical re-running of the deposit procedure would produce absurd and unjust results, undermining the statute’s summary nature.
- Citations: Use this decision to counter procedural objections seeking fresh S.12(1) compliance at the appellate stage.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Statutory Text and Purpose
- Sections 12(1)–(3) set a one-time pre-condition of deposit/payment of admitted arrears; failure authorizes summary eviction.
- Section 18 confers appellate jurisdiction to test legality, not rehear facts.
-
Role of Appellate Authority
- Can stay, extend time, or direct payment but need not repeat section-12 procedure mechanically.
- A fresh S.12(1) application is permissible only where new rent accrues after filing the appeal.
-
Avoiding Absurdity
- Literal repetition would require the same summary procedure for every appeal, analogous to re-filing CPC orders, leading to delay and injustice.
- Courts must interpret statutes with empathy, avoiding absurd consequences.
-
Precedents
- Manik Lal Majumdar: “appeal may be presented without deposit, but Appellate Authority can defer hearing until deposit.”
- Lifestyle Equities: rarity of staying money decrees without patent illegality.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Landlords)
- Reliance on Manik Lal Majumdar: material on record (money decree) shows admitted arrears; “prefer” means deposit as pre-condition for filing appeal.
- No statutory basis for fresh Section 12(1) at appellate stage.
Respondent (Tenant)
- Section 12 grants concurrent power; appellate authority must follow full summary procedure (including fresh S.12(1)).
- Cited Zeenath Ibrahim Full Bench: S.12(1) maintainable in appeal; eviction on non-deposit in appeal without fresh notice was unlawful.
- Appellate order gave only four days for deposit, not four weeks as Section 12(2) provides.
Factual Background
The tenant leased two shops in central Kochi, paid no rent since January/February 2020, prompting landlords to file eviction petitions under S.11 and a recovery suit (decree ₹26.44 lakhs). The Rent Controller under S.12(1) directed deposit of arrears; tenant failed, triggering S.12(3) eviction orders on 7 Nov 2024. Appeals under S.18 were stayed by the Appellate Authority for non-deposit. The Kerala High Court set aside that stay; the landlords moved to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 11: Eviction procedure on non-payment of rent.
- Section 12(1): Tenant must deposit all admitted arrears and continue payment to contest; Section 12(3): non-compliance stops proceedings and evicts.
- Section 18: Appeals to Appellate Authority with power to test legality, not to replicate first-instance summary process.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- No dissent; both Justices agreed.
- Concurring: emphasis on purposive interpretation and avoidance of absurd results.
Procedural Innovations
- Clarifies that appellate stage need not mechanically repeat the deposit/deposit-notice cycle under Section 12(1).
- Affirms discretionary power of Appellate Authority to manage interim payments and stays.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns Kerala High Court’s requirement of fresh Section 12(1) application on appeal
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms three-judge precedent in Manik Lal Majumdar
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Resolves conflict with Kerala Full Bench in Zeenath Ibrahim v. Joy Daniel