An absence of contest by a sub-tenant in a rent control proceeding allows the court to dismiss claims for orders under the relevant legislation.

ORDER

[RCRev. Nos.68/2025, 32/2025]

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These matters arise from orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Court in applications under Section 12 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short “Act”). The first respondent remained ex- parte. The second respondent wants to contest the matter. The Rent Control Court, noting that the second respondent is only arrayed as a sub tenant, had dismissed the application under (1) of the Act. The landlord took up the matter before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority noted that if the second respondent wants to contest the matter, he will have to pay the admitted arrears of rent and accordingly passed an order under (1) of the Act. This is questioned before this Court in the Rent Control Revision Petition by the second respondent – sub tenant.

2. We heard the matter on several occasions. In the previous occasion, it was submitted before this Court that the second respondent does not want to contest the matter. An affidavit has been filed before this Court. This Court was not satisfied with that affidavit filed on 20.03.2025. Thereafter, another affidavit was filed on 24.03.2025, in which it is stated as follows:

“I hereby submit that, I have decided not to further contest RCP 182/2018 pending before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The above submission also may be recorded into the file.”

3. In view of the affidavit, in unequivocal terms that the second respondent does not want to contest the matter, nothing remains in the matter except for the Rent Control Court to decide on the main matter and pass orders, as there is no contest.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent prayed to set aside the order of the Appellate Authority. This was opposed by the learned counsel for the landlord. The order under Section 12 (1) of the Act has been passed to enable the tenant or the sub tenant, as the case may be, to contest the matter. If they do not want to contest the matter, there is no scope for passing any order under (3) of the Act. In such circumstances, the order has become inoperative. However, who is accountable to pay the rent is a matter to be decided in an appropriate manner in civil proceedings claiming rent by the landlord. Accordingly, we dispose of these revision petitions with the following directions:

(I) We direct the Rent Control Court to reschedule the hearing and to advance the Rent Control Petition for taking evidence as per the law on 28.03.2025 and pass orders on the petition filed by the landlord claiming eviction on any of the grounds on which eviction was sought.

The Registry shall communicate this order to the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam for rescheduling the hearing.