Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Soumen Sen, CJ, Syam Kumar V.M., J
K.S. Ramachandran – Appellant
Versus
C.R. Gopalakrishnan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. adjudication under section 12 of the act requires specific evidentiary support. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. claims for set-off without documentation do not substantiate the defense. (Para 6) |
| 3. order for compliance extended; appeal not maintainable. (Para 7) |
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2026 Soumen Sen , C.J.
Heard Mr. Blaze K. Jose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tinu T. Joseph, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. An adjudication under Section 12 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Rent Control Court is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. Initially, we were of the view that, by reason of Section 18 of the Act, the said order was appealable. However, having regard to the decisions of the co- ordinate Bench in Sidharthan v. Hassankutty Haji 1 and Puthiya Nadammal P.M. Adbul Khadar v. V.P. Hamza, JUDGMENT, the appeal is not maintainable under of the Act.
3. Although we are of the view that certain clarity may be required with regard to the bar on the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in relation to
1
2 such matters, which may w
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
