Jiji.A vs Meeranath.S & Anr.

Soumen Sen, C. J.

Heard Mr. Saju J. Panicker, learned counsel for the respondents. None appears for the petitioner.

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.

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 Others^{11.2022 (5) KHC 684} and Ramkumar J. v. Ashok Jacob^{22.2022 (1) KHC 495} 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. Vichathran^{33.2023 KHC 9223} 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 Section 12(3) or to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the RC(OP).

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.

In view thereof, the petition is disposed of.