The tenant must substantiate claims of rent payment; an appeal under Section 18 from an order under Section 12(3) is maintainable.

Syam Kumar V.M. , J .

This Rent Control Revision is filed challenging the judgment dated 29.01.2026 in R.C.A.No. 54/2025 of the District Court, Manjeri. The principal grievance of the revision petitioner (tenant) is that the judgment impugned is unsustainable insofar as the Rent Control Appellate Authority overlooked the legal contention put forth by the revision petitioner that an order under Section 12 (3) cannot be appealed against under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act . It is further contended that the Rent Control Court ought to have allowed I.A. No. 6/2026, which was filed by the petitioner tenant seeking a direction to call upon the landlord to produce the bank account details, which according to the tenant, would have revealed that amounts towards rent were being consistently paid by him and that no arrears of rent existed during the relevant time.

2. It is noted that the Rent Control Appellate Au-

thority, vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the said appeal with the reasoning as follows:

"16. In the case in hand, enough time was given to the tenant to show cause why he should not be evicted from the petition schedule shop rooms and thus, Section 12 (2) of the Act has been complied with in the matter and after that the order under (3) of the Act has been issued by the learned Rent Control Court."

3. The reasoning, as revealed in paragraph No.16 of the impugned judgment, in effect reveals that, though sufficient opportunity was granted to the tenant to show cause why he should not be evicted from the petition scheduled building, except for the contention made in the IA that the amounts have already been paid and that the landlord should be called upon to produce his bank details which would evidence payment of the arrears of rent, nothing tangible and legally reliable was put forth by the tenant so as to substantiate his contentions. Relying on the decision of this Court, reported in Sidharthan v. Hassankutty Haji [ AIR 1995 Ker 122 ], the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal inter alia pointing out that it is up to the tenant to pay arrears or to show cause why an order directing the tenant to put landlord in possession should not be passed. As long as he fails to finally convey the above, none of the contentions put forth can be sustained.

4. We have heard Sri.Samsudin Panolan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner.

5. We note that it was always open to the tenant to substantiate his contention that he had been paying the arrears of rent regularly by producing relevant evidence regarding the payment of the said amount through his bank account. It is fairly pointed out by the learned counsel that such evidence had not been put forth and that, on the contrary, the premise on which the tenant laboured was that the burden was upon the landlord to produce evidence in the said respect.

6. We find that the reasoning given by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the impugned judgment, that, no sufficient cause has been made out by the tenant so as to why he should not be evicted from the petition scheduled property, is tenable and sustainable. The Rent Control Court as well as the appellate authority have concurrently concluded that inspite of being granted sufficient time either to pay off the arrears or to put forth sufficient cause of non payment, the petitioner tenant had failed to comply with either of the options. As for the contention put forth based on maintainability of an appeal under Section 18 from an order under Section 12 (3), in view of the dictum laid down in Abdul Razak P.M. v. K.C.Thomas [ 2022 (4) KHC 260 ], the same