SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ
PRAKASAN C.K., SEENA MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
BRIJILA T.P., MUKUNDAN P.P, V.K. DHARMARJAN – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 207 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SHRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN, SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI, SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN, SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI, P.K., SMT.SHILPA P.S., SHRI.UNNIKRISHNAN H., SHRI.ASWIN P.S., SMT.SHRIYA MERLIN MAXWELL
For the Respondents: SHRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SRI.P.A.HARISH, SMT.APOORVA RAMKUMAR

A stay order contingent on payment of arrears does not conclude the proceedings, thus making a revision petition unmaintainable.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The order under challenge concerns a stay application under rent control proceedings as per relevant provisions of Rent Control legislation. Facts of the Case: The revision petition challenges an order that granted a stay contingent on payment of rent arrears, as per the appellate authority's condition.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the revision is not maintainable as the order lacks finality and does not end proceedings.

Issues: The court articulated the main issue as the maintainability of the revision petition considering the nature of the order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that such interim orders within ongoing proceedings are subject to appeal and do not warrant revisional jurisdiction.

Result: The court dismissed the revision petition as it is not maintainable, but allowed for future challenge.

Table of Content
1. challenging an order in a stay application. (Para 1)
2. maintainability of revision petitions. (Para 2)

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This revision petition is filed essentially challenging an order in an application for stay. The Rent Control Appellate Authority passed an order granting stay on a condition that the tenant has to deposit the entire arrears of rent, and the same is challenged in this revision petition.

2. The Rent Control Appellate Authority is yet to decide the issue related to the jurisdiction, about which the Rent Controller had apparently assumed jurisdiction, overruling the objection of the tenant in regard to the maintainability. Anyway, that question is a matter to be decided in appeal. Now the question is whether the revision petition is maintainable. 3. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable, as the impugned order has not attained finality and does not by itself result in the termination of the proceedings. It is only a discretionary order passed on an application for stay.

We find that there is a formidable objection on the side of the landlord. We are not going to the merits of the challenge. We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition as it is not maintainable. However, we give liberty to the tenant to challenge the same in an appropriate manner.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top