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 |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Rent Control Act, 1965 procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that Section 12(1) deposit/payment requirement applies as a condition to contest before the Rent Controller but does not mandate a fresh Section 12 application in every appeal under Section 18 challenging an eviction order under Section 12(3). The appellate authority’s role is to test the legality of the Rent Controller’s order, not to re-determine default or re-invoke the entire Section 12 procedure. Fresh Section 12 applications are only warranted if supervening events occur during pendency of the appeal. The statute must be read purposively to avoid absurdity and undue delay. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The tenant leased two shops in Kochi and defaulted on rent from January/February 2020. Landlords obtained a money decree in 2023 and eviction orders under Section 12(3) in November 2024 for non-payment. Tenant appealed under Section 18 without filing a fresh Section 12(1) application. The appellate authority struck the appeals for non-deposit; Kerala High Court restored the appeals; Supreme Court granted SLPs. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts and tribunals exercising appellate jurisdiction under Rent Control Act, 1965 |
| Persuasive For | High Courts interpreting Section 12 and Section 18 of the Rent Control Act |
| Overrules | Kerala High Court decision dated 22 May 2025 |
| Follows | Supreme Court precedent in Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. vs. Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that an appellate authority is not obliged to insist on a fresh Section 12(1) application unless supervening rent accruals occur after the Appeal is filed.
- Holds that Section 12 procedure primarily lies with the Rent Controller; appellate review is limited to legality and jurisdiction.
- Reinforces purposive construction to avoid absurd delay and mechanical repetition of summary eviction steps.
- Lawyers can cite this decision to resist High Court-style orders mandating repeated deposit applications in Rent Control appeals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Text: Section 12(1) conditions contest in eviction proceedings; Section 12(3) empowers summary stoppage and eviction on non-payment. Section 18 confers appellate review.
- Appellate Role: The appellate authority tests the Rent Controller’s exercise of Section 12 powers; it need not re-determine admitted defaults or re-invoke the entire Section 12 process.
- Discretion: Appellate body may stay eviction, extend time, or require deposit of arrears based on its view of merits and supervening events.
- Purposive Construction: Rejects literal reading that compels repeated summary eviction steps; applies presumption against absurdity to preserve legislative intent of swift eviction.
- Precedent: Affirms Manik Lal Majumdar; distinguishes the Kerala High Court’s contrary interpretation; draws on principles in CPC summary-order analogies and anti-formalism authorities.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Manik Lal Majumdar governs; arrears admitted by money decree suffice for Section 12(1).
- “Prefer an appeal” means filing; no need to repeat deposit once default is judicially admitted.
- Appellate authority rightly stopped hearings upon non-deposit of ₹1.45 crore total arrears.
Respondent
- Section 12 is a concurrent summary power; appellate authority must follow full procedure again or lack jurisdiction.
- Zeenath Ibrahim Full Bench (Ker.) requires fresh Section 12 application in every appeal.
- Appellate stoppage without granting statutory four-week deposit period was unlawful.
Factual Background
Two landlords leased two commercial shops in Kochi to the tenant on monthly rent. Tenant defaulted from January/February 2020. Landlords secured a recovery decree for ₹26.44 lakhs in March 2023 and eviction orders under Section 12(3) in November 2024. Tenant appealed under Section 18 without filing a fresh Section 12(1) deposit application. The appellate authority struck the appeals; Kerala High Court restored them; Supreme Court granted Special Leave Petitions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 11 & 12: Provide a summary eviction route: rent arrears admitted or proven must be paid/deposited; non-payment enables Section 12(3) eviction without fresh suit.
- Section 18: Appellate review power over Rent Control Court orders; no textual mandate for fresh Section 12 steps prior to appellate hearing.
- Interpretation: Sections read purposively; Section 12(1) deposit as pre-condition to contest, not to re-invoke on every appeal; supervening accruals may justify fresh application.
Procedural Innovations
- Confirms appellate discretion to require deposit without re-launching Section 12 procedure.
- Prevents redundant summary-eviction applications on appeal, streamlining Rent Control appellate practice.
- Clarifies scope of “admitted arrears” via judicial decree as sufficient for Section 12 enforceability.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overrules Kerala High Court decision mandating fresh Section 12 applications in appeals
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Supreme Court’s Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. procedural interpretation under Rent Control Act