WHEN JUSTICE REFUSES TO BE DELAYED

INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant Judgment in P.U. Sidhique & Ors. v. Zakariya, Civil Appeal Nos. 13901–13902 of 2025, decided on 21 November 2025 by Hon’ble Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan. The Ruling examines whether, during an appeal against an eviction order under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the landlord must once again initiate proceedings under Section 12(1) before the Appellate Authority. The Court elevated this issue beyond mere procedural interpretation by emphasizing that law must act as a force for justice rather than absurdity.

BRIEF FACTS
The Respondent-Tenant was occupying two commercial shops in Kochi at high monthly rent but stopped paying since early 2020. The Landlords filed eviction petitions under Section 11(2)(b). Parallelly, a money decree for arrears exceeding ₹.26 lakh was passed against the Tenant by the Civil Court without any continued stay. Subsequent proceedings under Section 12(1) resulted in an explicit direction to deposit arrears and pay future rent, which the Tenant failed to comply with. Consequently, Eviction Orders under Section 12(3) were passed. The Tenant preferred appeals but still made no payments, leading the Appellate Authority to stop further proceedings. The High Court reversed this, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF LAW
1) Whether the Section 12 procedure must be repeated before the Rent Control Appellate Authority while hearing an appeal against an order passed under Section 12(3)?
2) Whether the Appellate Authority must provide fresh statutory time for deposit of admitted rent before exercising its powers?
3) How should procedural conditions be interpreted to ensure the law promotes justice and prevents misuse?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1️. Fresh application under Section 12 not required in appeal
The Court held that the Appellate Authority is not a court of first instance and need not re-determine arrears or repeat Section 12 proceedings. Its role is only to examine correctness of the eviction order already passed. Requiring duplication would be absurd and contrary to legislative intent.

2️. Discretion of Appellate Authority
The Appellate Authority has full discretion—
• to stay eviction
• to require deposit
• or decline to hear the appeal till arrears are cleared
However, this does not mandate a repeat procedure under Section 12.

3️. Law must operate reasonably, not mechanically
Invoking Charles Dickens’ metaphor sharply criticizing senseless legal formalism, the Court emphasized that statutes are to be interpreted with empathy, pragmatism and common sense. Procedural safeguards cannot become tools of injustice or delay.

4️ Misuse of process by Tenant
The Court took note that the Tenant had remained in prime commercial premises without paying a penny for more than five years, despite a valid money decree. Allowing technical objections to continue would defeat the summary nature of rent-control remedies.

5️. High Court’s approach overturned
The Supreme Court restored the Appellate Authority’s Order, holding that the High Court’s direction requiring repetition of Section 12 procedure was unjustified and contrary to both the Act and prior precedent (Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors. vs. Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 400).

CONCLUSION
The Judgment sends a strong message against procedural adventurism that undermines the rights of landlords under rent legislation. By refusing to allow a delinquent tenant to misuse appellate processes to indefinitely retain possession rent-free, the Court reaffirmed the purpose of summary eviction mechanisms. It reinforces that procedural law is the handmaid of justice, not its stumbling block — ensuring that courts do not permit technicalities to eclipse fairness, efficiency, and economic realities

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Rights of Husband in False Matrimonial Cases | 498A Misuse | 2025 Judgments Explained|” can be viewed at the link below: