The appellate jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not applicable for adjudications under Section 12(1).

Dated this the 11^th 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 warrant deeper consideration, we are presently not inclined to examine the said question as it plainly appears to us that the Court concerned was considering the application underSection 12(1) of the Act and, while deciding the said application, had also referred to the pleadings filed under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that, in deciding an application under Section 12 (1), the Court is not to proceed merely on the basis of what the tenant has stated with regard to the admitted arrears and it involves a limited adjudication to ascertain whether the amount admitted by the tenant can be accepted at that stage, leaving the parties to obtain a decision under Section 11(2)(b) of the said Act.

5. We are in complete agreement with the said submission, as the Rent Control Court, while deciding an application filed by the tenant in a proceeding for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, is required to apply its mind and arrive at a finding as to whether, for the purpose of ascertaining the arrears of rent admitted by the tenant, the same can be accepted on the basis of the pleadings and the documents on record.

6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the rent of ₹6,000/- was admitted by the tenant to be in arrears. The tenant, however, raised a defence of adjustment and claimed set-off without producing any document to substantiate such claim. The most appropriate evidence would have been a written agreement; in its absence, some communication from the landlord acknowledging the adjustment and set-off claimed by the tenant. Admittedly, no rent receipt was produced for the period for which adjustment or set-off was claimed. Although the landlord had made a larger claim with regard to the arrears of rent and had relied upon the fair rent adjudicated by the Rent Control Court in deciding the application under Section 12 (1) of the Act, the Rent Control Court did not proceed on the basis of the said fair rent and, instead, proceeded on the basis of the rent admitted by the tenant.

7. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Control Court. The petition stands disposed of. However, we extend the time for compliance with the order of the Rent Control Court by four weeks from today. We make it clear that the claim for set-off or adjustment cannot be considered at this stage due to lack of evidence.

Sd/-