P. U. Sidhique vs Zakariya - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1958

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1958

RAJESH BINDAL, MANMOHAN
P. U. Sidhique – Appellant
Versus
Zakariya – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karthik S.D., AOR Mr. Tom Joseph, Adv. Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.B Krishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarath S Janardanan, AOR Mrs. Anila Tharakan Thomas, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

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, the issue that arises for consideration is whether laws are to be interpreted as a force for justice or not.

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 Rs.55,000/- and Rs. 99,187/-, respectively during the rele

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the listed case laws explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "abrogated" in the provided descriptions. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, no case is identified as bad law.

Followed / Affirmed / Consistent Treatment:

MANIK LAL MAJUMDAR VS GOURANGA CHANDRA DEY - 2004 0 Supreme(SC) 247: The case discusses the mandatory payment or deposit of all arrears of rent before an appeal under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975. The language suggests this is an established legal requirement, but there is no indication that this ruling has been challenged or overruled.

Zeenath Ibrahim, W/o. Late N.A Ibrahimkutty vs Joy Daniel, S/o. Daniel - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1699: This case affirms the maintainability of an application under Section 12(1) of the Rent Control Act in an appeal against an order under Section 12(3). The language indicates it states a settled legal position without suggesting any subsequent challenge.

Rekha Mukherjee VS Ashish Kumar Das - 2003 8 Supreme 280: The case emphasizes that a party giving an undertaking is bound by it, but the scope cannot be enlarged. This appears to be a settled principle, with no indication of subsequent disapproval.

State of Karnataka VS C. Lalitha - 2006 1 Supreme 640: The case discusses the evolution of service jurisprudence and the principle of treating similarly situated persons equally. The language suggests it states a principle rather than a ruling that has been overruled.

Manik Lal Majumdar VS Gouranga Chandra Dey - 2005 1 Supreme 204: The case clarifies that an appeal under Section 20 may be filed without payment of all arrears, but the appellate authority may not proceed until arrears are paid. This appears to be a statement of legal procedure without subsequent negative treatment.

None of the cases explicitly indicate treatment that is unclear or ambiguous based on the provided descriptions. All entries seem to describe principles or procedural requirements without referencing subsequent judicial treatment that would cast doubt on their validity.