Tenant obligations under rent control law enforce stringent compliance with payment of rent as a prerequisite for contesting eviction.

O R D E R Jobin Sebastian, J.

This Rent Control Revision is filed by the tenant in R.C.P. No. 47/2020 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thalassery, who is the appellant in R.C.A. No. 90/2025 before the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority–

III, Thalassery.

2. The aforesaid R.C.P. was filed by the respondent herein, the landlord, under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent and under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Control Act”), seeking eviction of the tenant. During the pendency of the Rent Control Petition, the Rent Control Court passed an order under Section 12 (1) of the Act directing the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent and to continue to deposit the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of the tenanted building.

3. However, the tenant failed to comply with the said direction within the time stipulated in the order. Consequently, on 18.12.2025, the Rent Control Court passed an order of summary eviction under Section 12 (3) of the Rent Control Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority as R.C.A. No. 90/2025. Since there was a delay of 114 days in preferring the said appeal, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay was also filed. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the delay condonation petition, and consequently, the Rent Control Appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

4. While considering whether any interference is warranted with the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the orders passed under Sections 12 (1) and 12(3) of the Rent Control Act, it is relevant to note that Section 12 of the Act obliges the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent as a pre-condition for contesting the proceedings. This provision is essentially equitable in nature and encompasses arrears accrued both prior to the initiation of the proceedings and those that fall due during the pendency of the litigation.

5. The order of the Rent Control Court reveals that it was passed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the admissions made by the tenant. Based on such admissions, the Rent Control Court entered a finding regarding the existence of the landlord–tenant relationship.

6. In the Rent Control Petition, it was contended that, apart from a shop room, a staircase room was also taken on rent by the tenant. However, in his counter statement, the respondent contended that the petitioner’s claim that an unnumbered staircase room was also leased out to him is absolutely false. Nevertheless, the respondent admitted the tenancy arrangement between himself and the petitioner with respect to a shop room bearing No. 16/193, though he denied the existence of any arrears of rent in respect of the said shop room.

7. The order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12 (1)

of the Rent Control Act reveals that the tenant was directed to pay the admitted arrears of rent only in respect of shop room No. 16/193. Further, in the impugned order, it is observed that the lease agreement dated 30.04.2016 pertains exclusively to room No. 16/193 and that the staircase room is not included in the schedule to the said agreement. The direction to pay admitted arrears was issued after considering the fact that the respondent/tenant failed to produce any document or receipt evidencing payment of rent for room No. 16/193. It is al