Rent Control disputes require determination of tenant-landlord relationships before enforcing payment orders.

O R D E R SOUMEN SEN, C.J .

The dispute arises out of an agreement which, according to the appellant, is not a tenancy agreement covered by the Rent Control statute. The landlord on the other hand contends that the Appellate Authority, had after detailed proceedings, directed payment of 50% of the arrears of rent and stayed the order impugned in the appeal. The petitioner thereafter filed I.A. No. 5 of 2025, seeking an extension of time to deposit the amount. It is stated that, due to financial constraints, the petitioner was unable to deposit the said amount. The Appellate Authority, by invoking its powers under Section 12 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , dismissed the appeal and directed the revision petitioner to deliver possession of the property to the landlord within one month from the date of the order. The impugned order dated 11.07.2025 is presently under challenge. It is submitted that the landlord has not been put in possession yet.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner submitted that, without determination of the tenant-landlord relationship, the Appellate Authority could not have directed the payment of the said amount as a condition precedent for the transfer of property, and referred to the judgment of this Court dated 26.10.2022, whereby the matter was remanded to the Rent Control Court for fresh adjudication on the issues involved. It is pointed out that this Court, in its judgment dated 26.10.2022, accepted the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the landlord could not have obtained such an order based on photocopies of the documents, without a proper adjudication as to the authenticity of the said documents. What seems to have been urged was whether the landlord could lead secondary evidence of the document without first establishing that he was unable to produce the primary evidence, namely, the original agreement.

3. Be that as it may, much time has passed, and there has already been an adjudication by the Rent Control Court. After remand, that order was challenged before the Appellate Authority. It is not in dispute that the Appellate Authority is competent to pass a conditional order for stay, and in the event such conditions are not fulfilled, it is open to the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal. However, in the interests of justice, we extend the time to deposit 50% of the arrears of rent determined by the Rent Control Court, to be paid within four weeks from the date. If the aforesaid deposit is made, the landlord may withdraw the amount before the Rent Control Court, provided an undertaking is given to refund it in the event the appellant succeeds.

4. In the event of compliance with the aforesaid order, the Appellate Authority shall decide the matter afresh. Having regard to the fact that the matter has been pending since 2019, we direct the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of deposit of the amount. We make it clear that this order is conditional. If the said amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the order shall attain finality and be executed immediately, without further reference to this Court. However, there shall be an unconditional stay of the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority for a period of four weeks.

5. The Rent Control Revision is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-