Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17688
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SOUMEN SEN, CJ, SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
JIJI.A – Appellant
Versus
MEERANATH.S – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 30 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.PRATHEESH.P, SMT.ANJANA KANNATH, SMT.SAFNA P.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.SAJU J PANICKER, SHRI.KURIAN K JOSE
Failure to pay rent and show sufficient cause leads to strict consequences under the Rent Control Act.
Headnote:This judgment revolves around the decision under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The facts involved the tenant's default in rent payment, as discussed in preceding courts. The judgment confirmed findings that the tenant failed to show adequate cause for non-payment. The issues framed concerned the tenant's obligation and the appellate court affirmed the findings after consideration of evidence and procedural adherence. The court reasoned that default warranted the upheld decisions, leading to finality in the tenant’s obligation under the act. The petition is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondent counsel arguments highlighted tenant's recurring defaults. (Para 1) |
| 2. tenant must pay rent timely to avoid legal consequences. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's decision to dispose based on established defaults. (Para 4) |
Heard Mr. Saju J. Panicker, learned counsel for the respondents. None appears for the petitioner.
2. On 10.02.2026, we passed an ex parte order granting stay on the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of ₹
50,000/- within two weeks from that date in view of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that six months’
time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises.
3. We have considered the concurrent findings and facts with regard to the grounds raised in the revision petition and it is needless to mention that both the courts have meticulously dealt with the evidence and arrived at a finding that the tenant committed default in spite of the order under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , and has failed to show any cause for not paying the said amount within the stipulated period. The ratio of the decisions considered by the first appellate court in Girindra Global Hospitality and Another v. Manappuram Hotels (P)
Ltd. and Others1 and Ramkumar J. v. Ashok Jacob2 wherein it was held that if the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied about the cause shown by the tenant, it will not make any order under Section 12 (2) of the Act stopping further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and also the decision in Subeesh v. Vichathran3 wherein it was held that when sufficient time was granted to the tenant for making the payment of arrears of rent and when he failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of arrears, the order passed consequent to such non-compliance will not warrant interference, would clearly apply to the facts of the present case. Further, it was held that payment of the admitted arrears of rent during the pendency of the appeal is not a reason to set aside an order passed under (3) or to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the RC(OP).
4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the appellate court did consider the aspect of sufficient cause in paragraph 8 of
the judgment and thereafter has rightly observed that there has been laches on the part of the tenant which cannot be condoned. Moreover, the admitted arrears of rent have not been paid till date.
5. In view thereof, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
