The court reinforces that procedural adherence in eviction orders is crucial, allowing only specified circumstances for tenant defenses.

Dated this the 09^th day of January, 2026 V.G.ARUN, J.

The respondent has filed R.C.P. No.8 of 2024 before the Rent Control Court, Changanassery seeking eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises under Sections 11 (2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Pending the Rent Control Petition, the respondent/landlord moved an application under Section 12 of the Act with a prayer to direct the petitioner to pay/deposit the admitted arrears of rent. Therein, an order was passed by the Rent Control Court, directing the petitioner to clear the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,98,000/- and also to deposit the rent accrued subsequently. That order was challenged before this Court in an original petition (O.P.(RC) No.137 of 2025) and the same was disposed of with the following clarification: “We make it clear that the operative portion of the impugned order has to be clarified to the effect that if the tenant fails to clear the arrears as ordered, that by itself will not result in passing an order under (3) of the , a separate order under (3) of the Act will have to be passed by the Rent Control Court.”

Accordingly, the Rent Control Court heard the petitioner and again passed an order under Section 12 (3) of the Act, stopping all further proceedings in the Rent Control Petition and directing the petitioner to put the respondent in vacant possession of the building forthwith. Although petitioner challenged that order in revision, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the Rent Control Court.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, despite the clarification made by this Court, the Rent Control Court passed the impugned order without considering the reason for non- remittance urged by the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the huge disparity in the quantum of arrears demanded by the landlord at various stages and the specific contention of the petitioner that, after deducting certain amounts expended by him, the balance arrears would come to Rs.1,71,000/- only, as against Rs.1,98,000/- demanded by the landlord, were also not appreciated.

3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that, on the earlier occasion, this Court had clarified the order passed by the Rent Controller only to the effect that a separate order under Section 12 (3) of the Act ought to be passed. According to the Counsel, the Rent Controller having passed a separate order under (3), after hearing the parties, no intervention is warranted in revision.

4. A close scrutiny of the judgment rendered by this Court in the original petition filed earlier leaves no room for doubt that the amount of Rs.1,98,000/- fixed as the admitted arrears of rent by the Rent Controller, was not interfered with. The only clarification made is that a separate order under Section 12 (3) of the Act should be passed. Indisputably, in accordance with the clarification, the Rent Controller heard the parties and passed the order under (3). A perusal of the order shows that the Rent Controller had considered and rejected the reasons put forth by the petitioner for not remitting the arrears of rent, as ordered by the Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that, given an opportunity, the petitioner will pay the amount as directed.

As we find the said request to be reasonable, the Rent Control Revision is disposed of by extending the time for remittance of the arrears of rent, as directed by the Rent Control Court, by one month. Needless to say that if the amount is not remitted within the extended period, the direction of the Rent Control Court will come into effect. It is also made clea