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) 16477

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SOUMEN SEN, CJ, SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
SABITHA ABDUL SALIM – Appellant
Versus
JOEMON NINAN – Respondent
OP (RC) NO. 50 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ANEESH JAMES, SHRI.JIJO THOMAS, SMT.M.D.BEENA, SMT.RENEETA VINU

Judicial review of procedural errors in determining rent arrears timelines under rent control legislation.

Headnote:This judgment evaluates the procedural shortcomings regarding the computation and deposit of rent arrears in OP (RC) No. 50 of 2026. The court identifies an apparent error in the order of Rent Control Court and permits the petitioner to seek clarification on the timeframes for deposit. The conclusion emphasizes the need for explicit directions on the timeline of arrears deposit before the Rent Control Court.

Table of Content
1. court hears arguments from the petitioner. (Para 1)
2. court highlights procedural errors in the rent control court's directives. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court allows petitioner to seek clarification on order timelines. (Para 6)

Heard Mr. Aneesh James, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. There appears to be an error apparent on the face of the impugned order, inasmuch as the time period within which the arrears of rent calculated at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per month are to be deposited and other consequential directions have not been specified.

3. Instead of entertaining the petition, we dispose of the same by granting liberty to the petitioner to apply before the Rent Control Court for modification/clarification of the order, as the said order is silent regarding the period within which the arrears of rent calculated at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per month are to be deposited and other consequential directions.

4. It is needless to mention that the Rent Control Court shall specify the period during which the rent became due and payable and, accordingly, modify the operative portion of the order within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of such application by the petitioner. The order shall also clarify the manner in which the said deposit is to be made. 5. The application shall be restricted to the period during which the rent became due and payable and remained unpaid by the respondent.

6. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, we do not propose to issue notice to the respondent.

Sd/-

SOUMEN SEN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

SYAM KUMAR V. M.

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