This writ petition (criminal) before the Kerala High Court concerns a mother’s plea to produce Aby James, her son, who she alleges has been detained by transgender individuals and to secure his liberty. Aby James reportedly suffered a mood disorder with psychotic features and was treated as an inpatient, gaining temporary insight. He later left home on 9 May 2018 and re-emerged as a transgender, adopting the name Arundhathi, raising concerns for the petitioner about his safety and welfare in potentially risky environments. A criminal case under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 1960 (Crime No. 477/2018) was registered for “missing person.” Aby appeared in court dressed as a female, declaring himself transgender and denying a psychiatric abnormality, while the petitioner highlighted a past history of psychiatric treatment and urged an urgent medical/psychological evaluation. The bench acknowledged the transgender individual’s identity and rights under Article 19(1)(a) and invoked the Parens Patriae doctrine, citing Shafin Jahan v. Asokan to acknowledge limits on intervention. After a brief psychiatric evaluation at Kusumagiri Mental Health Centre, the report indicated orientation was normal and no thought disorder or incompetency existed. The court concluded that a detailed assessment should proceed but ultimately dismissed the petition, noting the detenu’s right to freedom of movement and association and without costs.
The petitioner, Anishakumari, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution to produce her four-year-old son Gowtham Krishna before the High Court and to obtain relief as may be fit. The Family Court, Nedumangad, via Ext.P1 (O.P. (G&W) No.504/2015) on 09.05.2017, granted the petitioner the status of guardian with permanent custody of the child, while permitting the third respondent to visit on Saturdays from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on payment of Rs.1,000 per month. The petitioner filed E.P.97/2017 to execute the decree; however, custody has remained with the third respondent since 29.03.2015. The petitioner alleged that the third respondent is a wanted criminal with non-bailable warrants in several cases and may misuse the child, possibly for human trafficking. She submitted that the police have not protected the child and sought change of custody in welfare of the minor. The respondents claimed the child is living safely with the third respondent, who is not a stranger to the child, and that the Family Court decree is in force; execution proceedings are pending. The court directed verification of the child’s whereabouts, found the child with the third respondent, and ultimately disposed of the writ by denying a transfer of custody but directing the family court to expedite the execution process and ensure the decree is enforced, while allowing custody with the third respondent subject to compliance with the directives.
WP(C).No. 11252 of 2017; WP(C).No. 11249 of 2017 George Mathew, the licensee of toddy shops Nos. 1 to 5 in Group I and toddy shop No. 17 in Group IV of the Kothamangalam Excise Range, challenged renewals of licences in two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitions sought mandamus or other direction to renew licences for the periods extended by government orders, on the premise that the renewal pursuant to the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules and Rule 7 would not require fresh landlord consent. An interim renewal, permitting renewal without landlord consent if the application was otherwise in order, had been granted earlier, but was challenged. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Disposal Rules (Rules 2, 3, and 7, including sub-rule (4)) and the Government orders extending licence periods, along with pertinent statutory provisions and precedents. It discussed Shajahan M.I. v. Alice George and others (2015 (1) KHC 811) and Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram (2016) 14 SCC 263, as well as Meena Chaudhary and other authorities on pleadings and interlocutory relief. The court ultimately held that the consent of landowners is mandatory under Rule 7(4) for grant/renewal, even when licences are extended by government orders, and that renewal beyond the extended period requires fresh consent where buildings are co-owned. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with no costs.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1629 OF 2023 & 1614 OF 2023 These bail petitions under Section 438 CrPC concern accused in a Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram case alleging offences under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 506, 308, and 427 read with 34. The prosecution case, dated 17.02.2023, alleges that the accused, moving a car toward the left without signaling, struck the motorbike on which the de facto complainant was riding, abused him, and restrained him near Tamara Hotel. Accused 2 slapped the complainant; accused 1 allegedly attempted to stab him with a car key; the assault reportedly caused a nose injury, and a further beating with a helmet occurred when the complainant reached Petta. The de facto complainant, an advocate, contends the acts were aggravated by targeting lawyers who questioned alleged illegal activity; the allegation includes an offence punishable under Sec. 308 IPC. The petitioners submit innocence, claim at most provocation, and readiness to accept lawful conditions for bail. The Special Government Pleader opposes bail, arguing arrest and custodial interrogation are warranted for investigation, especially given the assault on lawyers and potential 308 charge. The court, after reviewing the case diary and wound certificates, finds prima facie force but not a necessity for arrest; permits deemed custody for interrogation and weapon recovery, and grants bail with conditions to ensure cooperation and protect witnesses.
WP(C) Nos. 36842 of 2015, 15247 of 2016, 23067 of 2017, 23289 of 2017, 24474 of 2017, 25417 of 2017, 25669 of 2017, 25770 of 2017, 36593 of 2017, 41584 of 2017, 39311 of 2017, 4561 of 2018, 12310 of 2018, 27570 of 2018, 27658 of 2018 (consolidated) This batch of writ petitions arose from challenges to the Kerala Co-operative Societies (KCS) recruitment framework. The core issue is whether Rule 182(4)(iv A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, which grants 5 grace marks in interviews to candidates belonging to the home district (as defined by the area of operation of the cooperative society) is constitutional. The petitions argue that this gravity-based preference violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution by treating candidates differently solely on nativity/place of birth, a discrimination prohibited by Articles 15(1) and 16(2). The court traces the lineage of related rules (KS&SSR Rule 5A) and precedents (Dhanya.V.S., Jeeja.C.V., Sudheesh.K.S.) and concludes that the home-district grace marks lack intelligible differentia and do not bear a rational nexus to the object of selecting meritorious candidates for cooperative societies. The Division Bench ultimately holds clause (iv A) invalid, rules the extending Ext.P2 provision unconstitutional, and directs recasting of select lists without the grace marks. It holds cooperative societies as not being “State” for Article 12 purposes but subject to constitutional equality guarantees, and orders dismissal of most petitions with a targeted remedy in the standalone case (WP 12310/2018).
This appeal under MACA 2311/2014 arises from the death of Ali in a road accident on 09.01.2010, where his parents and sisters sought higher compensation under OP(MV)1315/2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The Tribunal had fixed the decedent’s notional income at Rs. 3,000 per month, despite evidence suggesting he was a Computer Mechanic earning about Rs. 8,000 per month. It also awarded reduced amounts under Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate and granted no Loss of Consortium. The appellants invoked established Supreme Court principles, including Pranay Sethi, Ramachandrappa and Sarla Verma, to argue for higher compensation and more appropriate head-of-damages, including a 40% addition for future prospects and an 18-year multiplier, while demanding parental Loss of Consortium and a Rs. 15,000 minimum for Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate. The respondents contended the notional income was properly fixed in view of lack of corroborative proof and argued the Tribunal correctly granted portions for Pain and Suffering and Loss of Love and Affection per Satwinder Kaur. In the result, the Kerala High Court partly allowed the appeal, enhancing several heads, deleting Pain and Suffering/Loss of Love and Affection, and granting Rs. 80,000 for Loss of Consortium to the parents, with interest and costs.
Crl.Appeal No.734 of 2017 Cheniyan v. State of Kerala is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (Crl.Appeal No.734 of 2017) challenging a Sessions Court conviction under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife, Karthiyayani. The incident occurred on 14 April 2014 when, after a quarrel, Karthiyayani was doused with kerosene and set ablaze in their home in Eleri, Kasaragod. She succumbed to burns on 18 April 2014. The trial court, after examining PW1–PW17 and marking Exts.P1–P15 and MO.1–MO.8, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000, with the fine payable to PW3 (the deceased’s daughter) as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and with an off-set for the period from 17/04/2014 to 30/04/2017. On appeal, the court considered whether the conviction was sustainable, noting the lack of direct evidence of the act but emphasizing a complete chain of circumstantial links: the accused’s presence at the scene, the existence of kerosene at the scene, witness testimony (especially PW3), site plan Ext.P7, ownership Ext.P8 (found inadmissible under 162 Cr.P.C.), and FSL findings Ext.P15. While there were inconsistencies in some witness testimonies (as acknowledged by the court), the judiciary held that the basic fabric of the prosecution case remained intact. Citing Ugar Ahir and Sivaprasad to stress careful appraisal of evidence, the court upheld the verdict and dismissed the appeal. The bench comprised P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha.
The appellant, Parish. P., aged 24, sustained grievous injuries in a road accident on 30.10.2015 involving a goods vehicle. He filed OP(MV) No.357/2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha seeking Rs. 51,87,000 as compensation, but the Tribunal granted only Rs. 15,11,101. The appellant challenged the award in MACA No. 205 of 2023. The High Court, presided by Justice Devan Ramachandran, examined the evidence, noting that the appellant claimed to be a professional driver; however, his income proof was weak, and the Tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs. 11,000 per month, slightly higher than the Rs. 10,000 floor recognized in Ramachandrappa. The court relied on Pranay Sethi and other Supreme Court precedents to accept future prospects and to determine the potential earning capacity. It held that the Tribunal erred in not including future prospects, which should be added to the notional income, and directed improved computation for permanent disability, while keeping other heads intact. The court enhanced the permanent disability compensation to Rs. 13,30,560 (with 40% future prospects, based on the 11,000 notional income). Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, with the enhanced amount to be recovered from the Insurance Company at 8% interest from the claim date, and costs on the enhanced portion. The Tribunal was also directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.
This is a criminal revision petition under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., filed by Shibu Raj M., the 2nd accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottayam (ST 194/2016). The trial court convicted the accused for issuance of a cheque of Rs. 6,24,000 dated 16.01.2016 in discharge of a debt, under Section 138 read with Section 141 NI Act, and sentenced him to pay the cheque amount as fine, with simple imprisonment in default. The Sessions Court, while upholding the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. The revision petition contends that the 1st accused (the firm) is a proprietory concern and that proceedings were defective for not joining the 1st accused appropriately; the argument also emphasizes that revisional jurisdiction cannot amount to a reappreciation of evidence, and that the benefit of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act should be properly considered. The High Court, however, clarifies the scope of its revisional power—supervisory, not a second appellate function—and upholds the concurrent findings of conviction. It notes the legal presumption in favour of the complainant and the requirement for the accused to rebut it. Citing Rangappa, Bir Singh, Kalamani Tex, and other precedents, the court rejects the challenge and dismisses the revision, but grants two months’ time to pay the fine and defers execution to 12.12.2022, with an additional appearance date on 13.12.2022.
NGI Alumni Forum, an unregistered body represented by its convenor Aswin P.V., approached the Kerala High Court with WP(C) No. 1714 of 2017, challenging alleged illegalities in the functioning of two engineering colleges—Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre and Jawaharlal College of Engineering and Technology—for purported breaches of UGC and AICTE norms. The petitioner sought mandamus for an enquiry into those alleged violations and a direction to recall hostel-closure orders so facilities would remain available until the examinations scheduled up to January 31, 2017. In 2020 the court had held that petitions by unregistered bodies are not maintainable when filed as public interest litigation (PIL). Relying on a string of precedents, the court examined whether an unregistered association can acquire standing under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge official actions. It concluded that, as a matter of law, unregistered associations lack standing and do not constitute juristic persons capable of petitioning the court in their own name. Consequently, the prayers did not survive and the writ petition was dismissed, with no costs, maintaining that a writ petition could only be pursued by a registered body or a juristic person affected by the action.
Selvan @ Siva S/o Murugan, the fourth accused in a taxi-driver murder case, appeals against his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court under sections 302, 394, 201 and 120B read with 34 IPC, with A5 convicted under section 201 IPC. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran, reviews a case where A1–A4 were found guilty; A2 died during the pendency of the appeal and A3 was a juvenile. A1 and A5 were acquitted in earlier judgments dated 17.09.2021. The prosecution alleged a premeditated conspiracy to steal a taxi, murder the driver, and conceal the crime by burning the body, with A4 allegedly using a clutch cable. The evidence, however, is predominantly circumstantial; there is no eye-witness and several recoveries and confessional statements were found unreliable or not properly corroborated. The court notes the lack of firm identification of A2–A4, hostile witnesses regarding recoveries, and considerable gaps in the investigation, including the I.O.’s failure to spell out exact statements and the mahazar. The Division Bench observes that the sole established link is A1 having hired the taxi from Perumbavoor to Pooppara; the rest of the narrative fails to connect the accused convincingly. In this light, the court allows the appeal with respect to A4 and acquits him, while noting prior acquittals of others in separate appeals.
W.P.(C) No. 41140 of 2022 This writ petition, filed by Vishal Vishwan, a devotee of Kanichanalloor Sree Krishnaswami Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board, sought a mandamus directing the Board and its officers to accept the petitioner’s offering in the form of Anpoli Para during Para Ezhunnellippu at Parimanam. The petitioner, a member of the temple’s Temple Advisory Committee, submitted Ext.P1 on 14.12.2022 to the 3rd Respondent Sub Group Officer with copies to Respondents 1 and 2, praying for permission to accept Anpoli Para. He claimed inaction by the respondents despite filing the application. On admission, the Standing Counsel stated Ext.P1 had not been received by the 3rd respondent and pointed to nonjoinder of the Temple Advisory Committee as a necessary party. The counter affidavit asserted that Para Ezhunnellippu is conducted by the Temple Advisory Committee under Devaswom supervision and that the petitioner’s petition is founded on disputes within temple karakkars. The court analyzed provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, noting duties under Sections 15A and 31 and the statutory creation of Temple Advisory Committees under Section 31A. It highlighted the petitioner’s failure to join the Advisory Committee and lack of a proper application, and cautioned against suppression of material facts. Ultimately, it held no legal right or statutory duty warranting mandamus and dismissed the petition, without costs.
W.P.(C) Nos. 19351/2021 & Others (connected matters); WP(C) Nos. 1067/2022; 1128/2022; 1119/2022; 15917/2018; 21910/2018; 22857/2018; 23023/2018; 26804/2021 The petitioners, importers and traders of spices (notably black pepper), challenged multiple DGFT notifications that modified pepper import policy under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The policy, reflected in Notifications 42/2015–20 (2017) setting a CIF threshold of Rs. 500 per kg for pepper import, followed by Notifications 50/2015–20 (2018) exempting MIP for oleoresin imports under Advance Authorization, and 53/2015–20 (2018) reinstating prohibitions with CIF-linked conditions, were further supplemented by Notification 21/2015–20 (2018) extending exemptions to EOUs and SEZs. The petitioners contended lack of competence of the DGFT to amend the EXIM policy, arbitrary and discriminatory treatment (MIP/CIF conditions applicable to ordinary importers but not to EOUs/SEZs), violation of fundamental rights (Articles 19(1)(g) and 14), and a challenge to the alleged non-delegable exercise of power, including a plea that the required parliamentary laying under FT(D&R) Act, Section 19(3), had not occurred. They argued piperine content fixation (6%) contravened the FSS Act (4% piperine standard) and that overriding provisions of the FSS Act (Section 89) and Section 25(1)(ii) would apply. The respondents defended the policy as a legitimate regulatory and fiscal measure to curb cheap, low-quality pepper imports harming domestic growers, and argued the DGFT’s role is to implement Central Government policy, with due authentication under constitutional rules. The Court upheld the policy as a valid exercise of central power, held Section 19(3) laying requirement to be directory (not mandatory), and dismissed all petitions. The decision underscores judicial deference to executive economic policy in the absence of statutory or constitutional violations, while confirming DGFT’s authority to regulate foreign trade policy.
Cont.Case (C) No. 388 of 2020 This Contempt of Court case (C) No. 388 of 2020 is filed by petitioners 117, 121, and 124 (citizens named in W.P.(C) No. 30009/2016) against Sandeep Biswas, Assistant PF Commissioner, seeking to enforce Annexure I of the Kerala High Court’s 12.10.2018 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 30009/2016 and connected matters. The petition references a Supreme Court SLP against the 2018 judgment, which was recalled and ultimately decided in 2022 in Sunil Kumar B. v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation, holding the validity of G.S.R. 609(E) (dated 22 August 2014) and directing certain amendments and relief, including time extensions for option exercises under the pension scheme. Annexure I contains the directives that the petitioners say have not been implemented by EPFO. The respondents’ counsel urged that any consideration be in accordance with law and the controlling 2022 Supreme Court decision. The court heard arguments and, applying the 2022 Supreme Court judgment and the RC Gupta line of interpretation regarding para 11(3) (pre-amendment) and para 11(4) (amended) of the pension scheme, directs that the petition be closed with a direction that EPFO reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension within the framework of the law and the 2022 judgment. The bench thereby bridges the contempt remedy with the controlling Supreme Court directive.
This Kerala High Court criminal misc. case concerns the quashing of proceedings arising from Crime No.19/2016 of Peruvanthanam Police, and the related C.C.No.169/2016 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha. The petitioner, H. Krishnakumar, is the 1st accused in the criminal case, alleged to have trespassed into government property in Survey Nos. 811 and 814 of Peruvanthanam Village and to have constructed a shed and levelled land, allegedly in collusion with another accused, for offenses under Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. The complaint was lodged by the Village Officer, who asserts the land is government property. The petitioner contends that the land is not government land but Devaswom property managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board in connection with Panchalimedu Devi temple, with the Edavagai rights having vested in the Government only under certain statutory acts. Annexure-A1 final report claims government land, yet the petitioner alleges lack of conclusive evidence identifying the property and demonstrates a bona fide dispute over land rights. The State argues that land status is a trial issue and the matter is unsuitable for quashing. The court, however, finds a genuine dispute over rights and lack of definitive materials, concluding that the prosecution constitutes an abuse of process. It relies on a civil-nature principle, citing Govind Prasad Kejriwal v. State of Bihar, to quash the proceedings and dismiss the case.
The petitioner, Jyothy Anthraper, seeks appointment as legal guardian of her two children, Ethen Joseph Tomy (born 05.09.2012) and Joanna Maria Tomy (born 19.04.2017), and permanent custody, along with permission under I.A. No. 7230 of 2022 to relocate with the children to Canada. The Family Court had earlier granted injunctions and status quo orders during the proceedings in O.P. No. 2711 of 2019, and subsequently dismissed Ext. P16, the relocation prayer, in December 2022. The petitioner argues that she holds permanent resident status in Canada and that the children, being Canadian citizens, would benefit from Canadian social, educational, and cultural milieu; she contends she could secure employment as a qualified professional (M.Sc. in Speech Language Pathology and Audiology) and ensure the children’s welfare there, including anticipated residency and schooling. The respondent, opposing the relocation, contends that the children’s welfare would be jeopardized, that there is no definite plan or employment in Canada, and that ongoing litigations in India would be imperiled if the children were moved. The Family Court relied on Supreme Court precedents Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar to hold that relocation is not in the children’s best interests, and dismissed the relocation application. The High Court of Kerala, applying the parens patriae principle, affirmed that the welfare of the children governs, and upheld the Family Court’s order; the original petition was dismissed.
An elderly writ petition challenges Ext.P12 stay order issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ernakulam in SA 475/2022 (S.A. No. 475/2022) on an application under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner, Mariamma Varghese, contends that the Tribunal mechanically directed payment of Rs.53 lakh as a condition for stay of further proceedings, though the Bank’s claim of Rs.1.87 crore requires adjudication in the original claim under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It is argued that one of the two mortgaged properties has already been taken possession of, and sale of that asset could discharge the liability, so a stay should not hinge on a heavy deposit. Interlocutory applications for valuation were allegedly not considered. The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India (2004) to contend that Section 17 proceedings are original and that pre-deposit is not a valid condition for maintaining an application under Section 17; thus the Tribunal could not have imposed any deposit for the stay. The Respondent Bank counters that the Tribunal correctly found no prima facie illegality in SARFAESI proceedings and that Mardia Chemicals allows stay with conditions; the deposit is reasonable. The High Court dismisses the writ petition but grants two weeks to approach the DRAT under Section 18, with a stay of physical possession for that period.
Joy, the first accused in S.C.No.479 of 2004, challenged his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 489B and 489C read with Section 34 IPC arising from an incident at Muthappan Bar, Sabreena Hotel, Perinthalmanna on 15.10.2002. The prosecution case was that the accused attempted to purchase a half bottle of Majestic Rum using a counterfeit Rs.100 note; hotel staff and a supervisor suspected its genuineness and alerted police. Fourteen counterfeit notes were recovered from the accused along with Rs.1,730 in genuine notes from his purse. The case underwent multiple transfers: from the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Perinthalmanna to the CBCID, and ultimately to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III (Adhoc), Manjeri, where it was tried as SC No.479 of 2004. Seven witnesses testified and fourteen exhibits were marked, with an expert opinion (Ext. P15) confirming the fakeness of the notes. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant on 489B and 489C, with five years’ imprisonment and fines, and three years’ imprisonment with fines for the respective sections. The appellant and his counsel challenged alleged procedural faults: arrest memo referencing a crime number, delay in producing notes, lack of tracing the source of counterfeit currency, and whether conscious possession was proven. Amicus Curiae cited decisions including Santhosh v. State of Kerala, Kuttan Nadar v. State, and Umashankar v. State of Chhattisgarh. The High Court, after considering the evidence and independent witnesses, held that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rejected the defense contentions, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Ramseena, the revision petitioner, challenges concurrent judgments convicting under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and upholding a substantial sentence. The cheque for Rs. 5,00,000 dated 30.09.2013, allegedly issued by Ramseena in favour of the complainant, was dishonoured on presentation. The complainant served legal notice; Ramseena failed to repay. The trial court convicted Ramseena and imposed simple imprisonment till rising, with a Rs. 5 lakh fine, to be paid as compensation; default attracted six months more imprisonment. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. In revision, Ramseena contends she is not a party to the transaction; the original agreement was between her husband and Mohanan, and the case rests on a strained chain of circumstantial evidence; no direct link connects Ramseena to the debt or the cheque. The High Court, emphasizing the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, holds the initial burden on the complainant discharged and the onus on the accused to rebut by preponderance of probabilities. It relies on Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, and Kalamani Tex to confirm the legal framework and reiterates that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate. Ultimately the revision is dismissed, though Ramseena is granted one month to pay the compensation and the sentence execution is deferred to 28.12.2022, with appearance on 29.12.2022.
This Rent Control petition arises from an eviction and rent arrears dispute between a tenant, C. Siju, an advocate clerk, and the landlord, Bindu Kuyyalil, before the Kerala High Court. The core questions challenge whether rent arrears can be claimed with interest and, if interest is permissible on the revised rent, whether it can be computed retrospectively from the date the fair rent fixation commenced. The Rent Controller had directed deposit of Rs. 71,729 as admitted arrears for the period 18.08.2012 to 18.01.2019 at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,077, with simple interest at 6% per annum from 18.08.2012 until payment, and ordered future rent to be paid going forward. The landlord’s eviction petition under Section 11(2)(a) and (b) claimed default in payment of rent and sought interest on the revised rent from 1.08.2012 onwards. The High Court clarifies that, under Section 11(2) and its proviso, the landlord is entitled to 6% interest for defaulted rent. However, the default tied to the revised rent arises only when the fair rent fixation order becomes final. Consequently, the Court held the tenant liable to pay 6% interest only from 14.12.2018 onwards (the date of finality of the revision), setting aside the prior directive to start interest from 01.08.2012. The petition is allowed to this limited extent, with no costs awarded."
