The provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 govern landlord-tenant disputes and are non-arbitrable, overriding claims under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

1. The challenge in this O.P(RC) is to the order dated19.05.2025 passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.134 of 2020 that was filed by the Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure (P) Ltd [hereinafter referred to as the 'Developer'] seeking to evict the petitioner firm under Section 11 (2) (a) and (b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the 'KBLR Act']. The case throws up an interesting question regarding the interplay between the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as the 'SEZ Act'] and the provisions of the KBLR Act, especially in the context of the remedy of eviction of a defaulter tenant, available to a landlord under the KBLR Act. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of the original petition are as follows:

2. The developer had set up a Special Economic Zone [SEZ]for Information Technology [IT] and Information Technology Enabled Services [ITES] on 53.1809 hectares of land in Kakkanad Village. Towards this end, it had also entered into a registered lease agreement with the Government of Kerala under which it obtained possession and leasehold rights in respect of the land, together with the right to sub-lease portions of the land to entrepreneurs, as defined under the SEZ Act. The developer then approached the Central Government with a request for notifying the land as an SEZ, and approving it as a developer thereof. It is not in dispute that the SEZ was duly notified as such and that the developer too was approved by the Central Government.

3. The petitioner firm approached the developer with a request for space within the premises of the SEZ, and on the developer agreeing to provide the space to the petitioner firm on its qualifying to be an entrepreneur, applied to the Development Commissioner for the necessary approval to function as a unit in the SEZ. The said application was approved by the authorised committee under the SEZ Act, and the approval letter, containing the terms and conditions subject to which the approval was granted, was issued to the petitioner. One of the terms in the letter of approval was that the petitioner had to furnish a copy of the registered lease deed executed with the developer within six months from the issuance of the letter of approval. It is not in dispute in this case that the said registered lease deed was duly executed, and a copy furnished to the Development Commissioner for confirming the letter of approval.

4. Alleging that the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of sub-lease rent and other charges, the developer sent a demand notice for Rs.61,51,258.54 to the petitioner, and on the petitioner refusing to honour the demand, the developer filed the rent control petition before the Rent Control Court. Although the petitioner filed its objections to the petition, and also raised the issue of maintainability of the petition before the court below, the latter by order dated 30.08.2024 in I.A.No.4/2023 filed under Section 12 of the KBLR Act, proceeded to find the petition as maintainable and directed the petitioner to deposit the rent arrears. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in O.P(RC) No.162/2024 wherein this Court set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration of the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue, after affording the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence before the court below. It is pursuant to the said remand that the order impugned in this original petition was passed by the Rent Control Court.

5. Before