Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, JOHNSON JOHN, JJ
A.K. MANZOOR – Appellant
Versus
T.K. IBRAHIM – Respondent
OP (RC) NO. 114 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
For the Respondents: B. ABBAS HAJI
The court emphasized the tenant's right to appeal against non-maintainable orders under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 12(3) - The petitioner, a tenant, filed an application to vacate an order passed under this section which was declined by the Rent Control Court. The court justified the dismissal as maintainability was questioned. The proper remedy for the petitioner lies in challenging the order before the Appellate Authority. (Paras 2, 4)
(B) The court grants the petitioner a two-week timeframe to invoke the remedy while keeping execution proceedings in abeyance during this period.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was ordered to vacate a premise under the Act, leading to the dismissal of his application for lack of maintainability.
Findings of Court:
The original petition to vacate was dismissed, but the court allowed a timeline to appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Issues: The main issue discussed was regarding the maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner under the circumstances of the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal was justified and highlighted the tenant's right to appeal before the appropriate authority when an application is not maintainable.
Result: Original Petition dismissed with liberty to challenge the order before the Appellate Authority.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
The petitioner is a tenant. An order has been passed under Section 12 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner thereafter filed an application to vacate the order passed under (3) of the Act. This application was declined on the ground that it was not maintainable. We hold that the Rent Control Court was justified in dismissing the application. The remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the said order before the Appellate Authority. In view of the above, the Original Petition stands dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge that order before the Appellate Authority. Hence, we grant the petitioner two weeks' from today to invoke the remedy. Till then, for a period of two weeks, execution proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.
Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sd/- JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.
amk APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 114/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RCP.NO.13/2022 FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE RENT CONTROL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF) KASARAGOD DATED
23/9/2022.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN RCP.NO.13/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/6/2023.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.2/2023 IN RCP.NO.13/2022 DATED 9/2/2024.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RCP.NO.13/2022 DATED 1/8/2024.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.2/2025 IN RCP.NO.13/2022 DATED 12/2/2025.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DATED 2/10/2024.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA NO.1/2025 IN RCP.NO.13/2022 TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN REMITTING THE ARREARS DATED 12/2/2025.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN IA NO.1/2025 IN RCP.NO.13/2022 DATED 17/2/2025.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.1/2025 TO CONDONE THE DELAY.
