LE ARABIA RESTAURANT REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, MOHAMMED SHAMSUDHIN v. FOUSIYA T.A
RCRev./72/2025 · 2025-03-25
A Muhamed Mustaque, P Krishna Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4974 (KER) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4974 (KER) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:KER:25727 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RCREV. NO. 72 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2025 IN RCA NO.146 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOZHIKODE / IV ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2024 IN RCP NO.80 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,KOZHIKODE-I REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS: 1 LE ARABIA RESTAURANT, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, MOHAMMED SHAMSUDHIN, 1-199 SOUDATH MANZIL, KOYILA HOUSE, KARNATAKA STATE, BANTHWAL DESOM, NAVOOR PANCHIKKAL, SOUTH KARNATAKA, PIN - 574211 2 MOHAMMED SHAMSUDHIN AGED 41 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER, LE ARABIA RESTAURANT, VANDIPETTA, NADAKKAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673011 BY ADVS.
GOUTHAM KRISHNA U.B.
SUBI S BINU
RCRev No.72/2025 2 2025:KER:25727 RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 FOUSIYA T.A AGED 54 YEARS D/O. THAYALMALIKAYIL ABDUL KHADER, ALKOUSAR, P.O.PERINGADI, NEW MAHEE, PERINGADI DESOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 673312 2 ASMA AGED 45 YEARS D/O. VARIKKODAN ABU HAJI, VARIKKODAN HOUSE, KODOOR P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676504 3 PARAKKANDY IQBAL AGED 55 YEARS S/O.PARAKKANDY KHADER, PARAKKANDY HOUSE, P.O.PERINGADI, CHOKLI, PERINGADI , THALASSERY,KANNUR, PIN - 673312 4 SHAKEELA NISSAR AGED 57 YEARS D/O.ABOOBACKER, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, P.O., PERIGADI, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 673312 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev No.72/2025 3 2025:KER:25727
JUDGMENT Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025 A. Muhamed Mustaque (J) The tenant filed this revision challenging an
order passed under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This has been affirmed by the appellate authority. The monthly rent is originally agreed at Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The landlord claims some enhancement on the monthly rent originally agreed. No rent was paid from March 2023 onwards. The case of the tenant is that, due to the tortuous act of the landlord, they were prevented from enjoying the property. Therefore, applying the doctrine of suspension of rent, the tenant is not liable to pay the rent. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Surendra Nath Bibra Vs. Stephen Court Ltd. (AIR 1966 SC 1360).
2. The Rent Control Act sets its own procedure for considering a petition for eviction. If the tenant wants to contest
RCRev No.72/2025 4 2025:KER:25727 the case, he has to pay admitted arrears of rent. This is a pre requisite for contest. If the tenant wants to contest on any other ground, like the one now raised before this Court based on the doctrine of suspension of rent, that requires adjudication in an appropriate manner. If the law envisages that, to contest the matter, the tenant is required to pay the admitted arrears, he cannot absolve such payment at the threshold by pointing out possible, probable, or prospective defences which he had raised as the objections. It is to be noted that, law never contemplates a situation to absolve a tenant from the payment of rent, pointing out these objections for not paying the rent. If there are admitted arrears, he is bound to pay those arrears as a prerequisite to contest the matter. In view of the fact that he had not paid the rent arrears as ordered under Section 12 (1) it resulted in passing a consequential
order under Section 12(3) of the Act by the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also affirmed that order. It
RCRev No.72/2025 5 2025:KER:25727 is submitted at the Bar that the landlord also executed the order passed by the Rent Control Court by taking delivery. Submission is recorded. In such circumstances we are of the view that there is no scope for entertaining the revision. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/- P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE HKH/25.03.2025
RCRev No.72/2025 6 2025:KER:25727 APPENDIX OF RCREV. 72/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF POLICE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS AND CO-OWNERS OF BUILDING NUMBER 1/3714 DATED 01.03.2024 ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF POLICE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BEARING COMPLAINT NO. 15288053-2024- 00302 DATED 01.03.2024 ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE ELECTRICITY OFFICER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SECTION, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE DATED 23.02.2024 ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT, 2005 BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KSEB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 08.04.2024 ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO ANNEXURE A4 ISSUED BY SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KSEB BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11.06.2024