SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13920

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Soumen Sen, CJ, Syam Kumar V.M., J
A.K. Manzoor – Appellant
Versus
T.K. Ibrahim – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 60 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan
For the Respondents: B.Abbas, Haji

Court upheld the dismissal of tenant's appeal for failure to comply with rent payment orders.

Headnote:The judgment examines the appeal against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority concerning rent arrears under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The court determined that the appeal was properly dismissed due to lack of adherence to prior orders regarding payment of rent. The tenant's request for an extension to vacate is left for the Execution Court's consideration. Ultimately, the revision is disposed of without intervention.

Table of Content
1. tenant's plea for extension referred to execution court. (Para 1 , 4)
2. previously dismissed application for recall of rent order. (Para 2)
3. court finds no reason to interfere with previous orders. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT SOUMEN SEN, C.J .

Heard Mr. Kodoth Sreedharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. The order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the subject matter of this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application had earlier been filed before the Rent Controller seeking recall and vacating of the order passed under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act of 1965”). The Rent Control Court dismissed the said application on the ground that it was not maintainable. The said order was challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pursuant to which a co- ordinate Bench, by order dated 23.06.2025, inter alia, observed that a remedy was available to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Rent Controller before the Appellate Authority. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed without adverting to the grounds raised by the petitioner for recall of the said order.

3. However, the said submission does not appear to be a correct appreciation of the proceedings. It is evident that, in the appeal, an order was passed on 29.10.2025 directing the petitioner to clear the entire arrears of rent, thereby extending the time fixed under Section 12(2) by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority, upon finding that the appellant had not deposited the said amount even within the extended period, dismissed the appeal. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed in the said proceedings.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that six months’ time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the premises, on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper. However, we leave it to the Execution Court to consider the said request after affording an opportunity of hearing to the landlord. In the event the landlord agrees, the Execution Court may grant extension for a suitable period, depending upon the cause shown for such extension in the said proceedings. The tenant shall file an affidavit undertaking to vacate the said premises within the time that may be fixed by the Execution Court. In view of the nature of the order passed, we do not propose to issue notice to the landlord.

5. The Rc Rev. is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top