Legal Review and Analysis of P U Sidhique & Ors vs Zakariya 2025 INSC 1340
In-Short
Case: P.U. Sidhique & Ors. vs. Zakariya
Citation: 2025 INSC 1340
The Supreme Court ruled that landlords are not required to initiate a fresh procedure under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Rent Control Act during a tenant's appeal against a Section 12(3) eviction order, holding that such a repetition is not mandated by law and would lead to absurd and unjust results, especially against a recalcitrant tenant.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: P.U. SIDHIQUE & ORS. vs. ZAKARIYA
Citation: 2025 INSC 1340 (Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal Nos.: 13901-13902 of 2025
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Date of Judgment: November 21, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily interprets and applies provisions from the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965:
Section 11: Pertains to the eviction of tenants, specifically on grounds like arrears of rent.
Section 12: Titled "Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction." This is the central provision in dispute. It mandates that a tenant must pay or deposit all admitted arrears of rent to be entitled to contest an eviction application or prefer an appeal. Failure to do so, without sufficient cause, empowers the court to stop proceedings and order eviction under Section 12(3).
Section 18: Provides for appeals against orders passed by the Rent Control Court.
The judgment also references the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975, specifically Section 13, which is pari materia (identical in substance) to Section 12 of the Kerala Act.
3. Basic Judgment Details
This case originated from eviction petitions filed by the appellant-landlords against the respondent-tenant for non-payment of rent for two shops in Kochi. The Rent Controller passed orders under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965, directing eviction after the tenant failed to comply with orders to pay outstanding rent. The tenant appealed these orders to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The core legal dispute reached the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court set aside the Appellate Authority's order, leading to the landlords filing the present appeals.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment and Analysis
The Central Issue: Repetition of Procedure in Appeal
The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a landlord, during the pendency of a tenant's appeal against an eviction order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act, must initiate a fresh application under Section 12(1) before the Appellate Authority, thereby repeating the entire Section 12 procedure.
The Kerala High Court, in the impugned order, had held that such a fresh application was mandatory. The Supreme Court fundamentally disagreed with this interpretation.
The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Analysis
A. Rejection of Mandatory Repetition of Procedure
The Court held that it is not mandatory to repeat the entire procedure under Section 12 before the Appellate Authority. Its reasoning was multi-faceted:
Role of the Appellate Authority: The Court clarified that the Rent Control Appellate Authority is not a court of first instance. Its function is to test the exercise of jurisdiction and the legality of the order passed by the Rent Controller. It is not required to re-determine the fact of default or the quantum of outstanding rent afresh.
Explicit Language of Section 12: The Court emphasized that Section 12(1) explicitly states that a tenant cannot "prefer an appeal" unless they have paid or deposited the admitted arrears. This condition is attached to the very right to appeal. The power under Section 12(3) to stop proceedings and order eviction operates by law upon the tenant's failure to comply.
Avoiding Absurdity and Injustice: The Court invoked the principle of interpreting laws as a "force for justice, not absurdity." It reasoned that requiring a landlord to file a fresh Section 12(1) application in appeal would be akin to requiring a decree-holder to file a fresh application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in an appeal, which is a procedural absurdity. It would defeat the summary nature of the eviction process and allow an "intransigent and recalcitrant tenant" to prolong litigation indefinitely without paying rent.
B. Clarification of Precedent: Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. Case
The respondent-tenant relied heavily on the three-judge bench decision in Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. vs. Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 400. The Supreme Court distinguished this precedent:
It held that Manik Lal Majumdar only establishes that an appeal can be filed without pre-deposit, but the Appellate Authority has the discretion not to hear it or grant any relief until the arrears are paid.
It does not lay down that the entire Section 12 procedure must be mandatorily repeated. The sentence referring to the Appellate Authority having "all the powers" under sub-sections (2) and (3) was interpreted as an enabling provision to deal with specific circumstances, not a command to re-initiate the process from scratch.
C. Clarification on the Kerala High Court Full Bench Ruling
The Court also addressed the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Zeenath Ibrahim vs. Joy Daniel. It clarified that this judgment only held that an application under Section 12(1) is maintainable in an appeal—meaning it is permissible, for instance, in cases of supervening events like fresh defaults during the appeal—but it does not mandate that such an application must be filed in every appeal.
D. Factual Context: A Recalcitrant Tenant
The Court's decision was heavily influenced by the factual matrix. It noted that the respondent-tenant was occupying two premier shops in the heart of Kochi for over five years without paying "a farthing," despite a money decree for arrears of rent being passed against him. The Court observed that the tenant had used procedural arguments to "turn the summary procedure on its head," thereby undermining the very object of the rent control legislation.
5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the landlords. The operative directions are:
The impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court dated May 22, 2025, is set aside.
The judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated March 19, 2025 (which had stopped the hearing of the appeal and directed compliance with the eviction order) is restored.
The Respondent-tenant is directed to hand over vacant physical possession of the shops to the Appellants-landlords on or before December 31, 2025.
This direction is subject to the condition that the tenant files an undertaking with the Supreme Court Registry within two weeks, promising to pay the outstanding arrears and hand over peaceful possession by the stipulated date.
In the event of failure to file the undertaking within the stipulated time, the Appellants-landlords are at liberty to execute the eviction decree forthwith.
6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment
MCQ 1: The Supreme Court in P.U. Sidhique & Ors. vs. Zakariya primarily interpreted provisions of which legislation?
a) The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
b) The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
c) The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
d) The Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975
MCQ 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment, is it mandatory for a landlord to file a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Rent Control Act during a tenant's appeal against an eviction order passed under Section 12(3)?
a) Yes, it is absolutely mandatory in all cases.
b) No, it is not mandatory, as the Appellate Authority's role is to test the legality of the Rent Controller's order.
c) Yes, but only if the tenant requests it.
d) No, but the Appellate Authority must always give the tenant a fresh four-week period to pay the rent.
Blog Posts
