SUMESH A V BABIJA BALAKRISHNAN M, 2025 (RPFC 321/2025)
November 24, 2025NOT MANDATORY FOR SENIOR CITIZEN TO ESTABLISH ILL-TREATMENT BY LEGAL HEIRS OR CHILDREN FOR EVICTION OR ANY OTHER RELIEF – HC SB DELHI
November 24, 2025SUPREME COURT EVICTS TENANT FOR FIVE YEARS OF UNPAID RENT, SLAMS "ABSURD" PROCEDURAL DELAYS
Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court ruled that a tenant who has not paid rent for five years cannot demand a repeat of the entire eviction procedure at the appellate stage. The Court held that such a requirement would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the summary eviction law, emphasizing that laws must be interpreted as a force for justice, not absurdity.
Factual Background
The appellants (landlords) rented out two commercial shops in Kochi to the respondent-tenant. The rents were substantial—₹55,000 and ₹99,187 per month—but the tenant stopped paying rent from January–February 2020, accumulating massive arrears.
In 2020, the landlords initiated eviction proceedings under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act for non-payment of rent, and separately filed a money recovery suit for arrears. The Sub-Court decreed the recovery suit for ₹26.44 lakhs, and the decree remained un-stayed.
In 2024, the landlords filed applications under Section 12(1). The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit arrears of ₹57,81,126 and ₹36,86,515 for the two shops, along with future monthly rent. When the tenant failed to deposit anything, the Rent Controller invoked Section 12(3) and ordered eviction, stopping all further proceedings.
The tenant appealed under Section 18 before the Appellate Authority. But again, he failed to deposit the arrears. Therefore, the Appellate Authority stopped hearing the appeals on 19 March 2025 and upheld eviction.
The tenant then approached the Kerala High Court, which overturned the Appellate Authority’s order, holding that the appellate authority must repeat the Section 12(1) procedure by granting fresh time to pay arrears.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
-
Must the Section 12 procedure be repeated before the appellate authority?
-
Was the High Court correct in setting aside the eviction order?
-
Can a tenant who has not paid rent for five years raise procedural objections to delay eviction?
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Court strongly rejected the Kerala High Court’s view.
1. Section 12 Need NOT Be Repeated in Appeal
The Court held:
-
Section 12(1) requires the tenant to deposit arrears before contesting an appeal.
-
The appellate authority is not the court of first instance; it only reviews legality of the Rent Controller’s decision.
-
Repeating the entire Section 12 procedure in appeal would be absurd, unnecessary, and contrary to the Act’s purpose.
2. Law Must Be Interpreted to Advance Justice, Not Absurdity
The Supreme Court emphasized:
-
Courts must avoid interpretations that defeat justice.
-
Laws should not be applied mechanically in ways that allow tenants to exploit procedural loopholes.
3. Tenant Occupying Two Prime Shops Without Paying Rent Is Misusing Process
The Court noted:
-
The tenant paid nothing for over five years.
-
He enjoyed two commercial shops in the heart of Kochi without paying even a single rupee, despite a money decree.
-
His arguments were aimed at delaying eviction and defeating the purpose of summary rent-control procedures.
Final Decision
-
The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court judgment.
-
Restored the Appellate Authority’s order dated 19 March 2025.
-
Ordered the tenant to hand over vacant possession by 31 December 2025, subject to filing an undertaking within two weeks.
-
If he fails to file the undertaking, landlords may execute the eviction immediately.
