In a packed courtroom on Friday, the Supreme Court delivered a sharp and almost moralistic reprimand to a Kochi tenant who hadn’t paid a rupee of rent for over five years. The bench, hearing the matter with noticeable impatience, restored eviction orders earlier passed under the Kerala Rent Control Act - orders that the High Court had set aside. The judges went beyond the dry statutory text, discussing not only procedure but also the “danger of mechanical justice,” making the hearing unusually reflective.
Background
The dispute centres on two premium commercial shops in the heart of Kochi. The tenant, operating from buildings 61/5797 and 61/5932A, allegedly stopped paying rent in early 2020. The landlords first moved eviction petitions before the Rent Controller under Section 11 for arrears and later invoked Section 12, which allows summary eviction if the tenant doesn’t deposit admitted rent during litigation.
A civil court had already passed a money decree against the tenant for over ₹26 lakh, and with no stay in force, the amount remained due. Despite this, the tenant neither complied with the Rent Controller’s direction to deposit arrears nor paid subsequent rents. Eviction orders were therefore passed under Section 12(3).
The tenant appealed. But instead of dealing with the merits, the Rent Control Appellate Authority stopped hearing the appeals because the tenant still hadn’t paid the arrears. The Kerala High Court later interfered, calling the Appellate Authority’s order “unfortunate” and restoring the appeal. That intervention has now been overturned.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court bench-Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan-took a firm line. At one point, the bench remarked that laws must be interpreted “as a force of justice, not absurdity,” warning against procedural gymnastics that let tenants drag matters endlessly.
They added, “Human beings, not artificial intelligence or computers, administer justice… the law cannot be applied mechanically without empathy and context.”
A key question was whether landlords must file a fresh Section 12(1) application when the tenant appeals an eviction under Section 12(3). The High Court said yes. The Supreme Court said unequivocally no.
The bench explained that the Appellate Authority is not a court of first instance; its job is to evaluate whether the Rent Controller acted correctly - not to restart the entire procedure. Forcing landlords to repeat the Section 12 process, the bench noted, would “turn the summary procedure on its head” and reward “intransigent and recalcitrant tenants.”
The court also cited its earlier three-judge ruling in Manik Lal Majumdar, clarifying that while the appellate court may allow a tenant to file an appeal without pre-deposit, it can refuse to hear the appeal until arrears are paid. That flexibility does not mean the entire procedure must begin anew every time an appeal is filed.
The Court further highlighted the stark factual reality: the tenant had occupied two high-value shops “without paying a farthing” for over five years, despite a decree staring at him.
Decision
Setting aside the Kerala High Court’s order, the Supreme Court restored the Appellate Authority’s decision that had stopped the tenant’s appeals. The tenant has been directed to hand over the shops to the landlords by 31 December 2025, provided he files an undertaking to pay arrears and vacate peacefully. If he doesn’t file the undertaking within two weeks, the landlords may execute the eviction immediately.
The judgment ends firmly - no fresh procedural loops, no indulgence for continued non-payment, and a clear reaffirmation that summary eviction provisions are meant to function swiftly.
Case Title: P.U. Sidique & Others vs. Zakariya
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 13901–13902 of 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22696–22697 of 2025)
Case Type: Civil Appeal – Rent Control / Eviction (Kerala Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act, 1965)
Decision Date: 21 November 2025 P.U. SIDHIQUE & OR