This writ petition, W.P.(C) No.13866 of 2016, filed by Pankaja Kasturi Ayurve Medical College, challenges a 3 November 2015 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (KSHRC) directing the college to repay Rs.50,000 secured as a penalty for allegedly issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in exchange for an undertaking, and to file an action taken report. The petition was heard after an interim stay on execution of the Commission’s order. Facts center on a complaint by the parent of a medical college intern whose internship was moved to another college; the college allegedly extracted Rs.50,000 and an undertaking to issue the NOC. The college contends the complaint involved alleged misconduct by a student and asserts it conducted an internal inquiry; the college maintains there was no opportunity given to the student to be heard before expulsion or punishment. The HR Commission’s proceedings cited judgments including P.M. Unni Raj and George Roy to emphasize natural justice, requiring fair hearing before substantial disciplinary action. The High Court examines the Commission’s powers under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and finds no statutory basis for such monetary penalties or for a single- person order by the Chairperson; regulations 2001 and 2002 are analyzed. The court ultimately refuses to interfere and dismisses the petition, upholding the Commission’s order.
This is a consolidated judgment of the Kerala High Court delivering final directions on freezing of bank accounts in the wake of cybercrime investigations across multiple petitions (WP(C) Nos. 10612 of 2024 and connected cases). The court, presiding over Justice T.R. Ravi, addresses petitions filed by various individuals, banks, and service cooperatives challenging police- or state-initiated freezing of account balances by banks following cybercrime notices and NRPD disclosures. The core issue is whether banks can freeze accounts to the extent of the amounts mentioned in police requisitions without unjustly blocking legitimate transactions. The court surveys the statutory framework and prior jurisprudence, notably references to RBI guidelines and precedent such as Dr. Sajeer v RBI. It issues interim/ongoing directions aimed at proportional freezing: restricting freezes to the specific amounts mentioned in police notices, requiring police to specify duration and limits, and directing banks to act in consonance with police notices while preserving account accessibility beyond the freeze limit. The judgment also reaffirms that if information is insufficient or inconsistent, petitioners may approach the court again. The orders are aimed at balancing effective investigation with protecting the petitioners’ financial rights and operational capacity, and the petitions are disposed of with these directions as final settlement.
CRL.RC NO. 611/2018 (and Connected Cases) This batch of connected criminal revision petitions—CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and numerous connected Nos.—was heard by Justice P. Somarajan on 12 June 2024 in the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. The petitions arise from Suo Motu proceedings under a resolution of the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 18.09.17, challenging various orders in cases pending in Kollam (various ST and police cases). The Court consolidated CRL.RC No. 611/2018 with connected cases and examined the legal question whether proceedings in summons cases can be stopped under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The judgment references a Division Bench decision in 2023 KHC OnLine 821, which discussed Section 258 Cr.P.C. and the power to stop proceedings where the accused cannot be located or where costs would exceed the maximum fine. The Kerala High Court accepted this position as the legal framework and held that stoppage of proceedings by the Magistrate, under Section 258 Cr.P.C., is permissible on proper satisfaction and grounds. Consequently, the revisions were dismissed, and the connected proceedings were closed, with no interference in the underlying orders. The decision underscores the authority of Section 258 Cr.P.C. to terminate summons-case proceedings in Suo Motu scenarios and emphasizes finality in these matters.
Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022; WP(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 This is a common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala (S.V. Bhatti and Basant Balaji Thursday) delivered on 22 December 2022, disposing seven Customs Appeals and two connected writ petitions arising from the CESTAT Final Order dated 17 February 2022. The core dispute concerns the legality of CESTAT’s jurisdiction to adjudicate alleged offences in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under the SEZ Act, in a matter involving gold seizures linked to the Cochin Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) and related parties. The Revenue contends that CESTAT misapplied the SEZ Act by expanding its jurisdiction to DTA offences and that the ingredients of customs law (under the Customs Act, 1962) remain applicable. The importer (Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd.) and related entities contend that SEZ Act provisions govern only activities inside the SEZ and that Customs Act processes must govern DTA offences, with particular emphasis on the legality of the 4 kg of gold detained at Nedumbassery. The court scrutinises SEZ Act provisions (Sections 21, 22) and SEZ Rules, and the interplay with Customs Act sections (111–114A, 120, 121, 125) and FTDR Act provisions. It holds that CESTAT’s jurisdictional expansion to DTA is unsustainable, but ultimately remits the matters for fresh merits adjudication. It also directs provisional release of 4 kg of gold subject to proper Bill of Entry and duty payment within a four-week window, and disposes the related writ petitions in terms of the Customs appeal conclusions.
This writ petition (WP(C) No. 28565 of 2023) challenges the tender process for the Extension of TERLS canteen at VSSC, Thumba. Crescendo Constructions Private Limited contends that its bid should be considered despite reliance on credentials of M/s Crescent Construction Company, a firm whose partners are directors or members of Crescendo. The petitioner’s counsel relies on New Horizons Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others to support treating the Crescent credentials as effectively belonging to Crescendo. Respondents counter that the credentials furnished were in the name of Crescent Construction Company, not Crescendo, and that several other defects in the bid (turnover, solvency, loss history, and the incorporation date) disqualify Crescendo under the NIT. A counter-affidavit lists 5.1–5.3, detailing the tenderers, the eligibility criteria, and Crescendo’s failure to meet critical criteria: lack of last five years’ verifiable turnover due to late incorporation (15.09.2020), absence of P&L data, and insufficient bidding capacity. The Legal Opinion obtained indicated that eligibility hinges on the company, not individual partners, and that the department should consider the company’s experience. The court, while noting the contention, declines to decide merits and closes the petition, clarifying that observations on Crescent credentials are non-conclusive and that the petitioner’s lowest bid status will be considered in future action.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases This batch judgment of a Kerala High Court Constitution Bench handling multiple writ petitions challenges Government orders and a prospectus governing Plus One admission in private aided higher secondary schools across Kerala for the 2022-23 academic year. The core issue is whether the Government could reduce the management quota for admissions to 20% in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools by G.O. MS 121/2022, and whether a 10% community quota carved out for schools declaring the management’s community affiliation could be reserved in the management quota. Petitioners, comprising managers of numerous Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools, contend the 20% ceiling and the 10% community reservation violate constitutional guarantees (Articles 14 and 15), disrupt secular educational policy, and undermine merit. Respondents defend the policy arguing executive prerogative to reform admission methods, curb malpractices, and ensure social justice, with reliance on precedents about the permissible scope of policy actions and classifications. The court upholds the 20% management quota, but strikes down the 10% community quota as unconstitutional, holding it arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15. It directs that the 10% seats should be treated as open merit seats and filled through the Centralized Allotment Process, while admissions already made on the declared community basis remain undisturbed. The judgment thus preserves the policy to limit management seats to 20% while eliminating community-based preferential seats in Private Aided PAHS.
TR.P.(C) Nos. 309, 313 & 314/2022 These transfer petitions, Tr.P.(C) Nos. 309, 313 and 314 of 2022, pertain to matrimonial proceedings between Litha Mariam Varghese (wife) and Santosh Thomas (husband) and his parents. The petitioner seeks to transfer O.P. Nos. 629/2019 (money and ancillary relief) and O.P.(Div) Nos. 639/2019 (divorce) and 630/2019 (divorce) from the Family Court, Pala to the Family Court, Thiruvalla, so that related proceedings may be consolidated and tried jointly. The husband is employed abroad (Bahrain) and the petitioner resides at Mallappally, Pathanamthitta; she argues that these practical factors, along with the absence of a chaperone for traveling to Pala, justify transfer. The respondents’ counsel represented them in the petitions. The court recites settled law from Supreme Court decisions (Sumitha Sing; Mona Aresh Goel; Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap; Santhini v. Vijaya; Venkatesh; Valsal Nisha) establishing that the convenience of the wife and children is a decisive factor in transfer of matrimonial disputes and that Section 24 CPC empowers the court to transfer to avoid conflicting judgments and to facilitate consolidation. After considering pleadings and circumstances, the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of transfer to Thiruvalla, allowing consolidation and granting facilities such as video conferencing and dispensation of personal appearances. The Registry is instructed to transmit records to Thiruvalla.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4903 OF 2025 This is a bail application (Bail Appl. No. 4903 of 2025) filed by Sajid, the 3rd accused in Crime No. 24/2025 of Kareelakulangara Police Station, Alappuzha, under sections 115(2), 126(2), 137(2), 310(2) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The High Court of Kerala deals with whether to grant bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution’s case centers on a vehicle that was entrusted to one Asif by Noufal for sale; allegedly, Asif pledged the vehicle without transferring ownership. Noufal retrieved a different vehicle and the matter escalated. The petitioner argues that the dispute with the defacto complainant has been settled, supported by Annexure-A1 affidavit. The Public Prosecutor counters by highlighting the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and a rowdy sheet. The court, after reviewing the affidavit and considering the settlement, concludes that bail can be granted under stringent conditions. Relying on precedents such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Manish Sisodia v. CBI, the court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It directs the petitioner to appear for interrogation within two weeks; if arrest is contemplated, bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; restrictions include not leaving India and not repeating similar offences, with potential for bail cancellation on violation. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez to uphold the bail framework.
This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, by three petitioners who are accused in Crime No.320/2025 of Nemom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 3(5). The prosecution case describes an incident on 10.03.2025 near Vellayani Mosque where the first accused allegedly uttered abusive words, slapped the complainant, the second accused beat the complainant on the nose, face and head, and the third accused kicked him; the first accused is said to have struck the complainant with a helmet, causing injuries. The petitioners seek bail; the Public Prosecutor opposes. The court notes that the only non-bailable offence is 118(1) with a maximum penalty of three years. It relies on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another to urge a lenient approach for offences with imprisonment up to seven years and to require a reasoned basis for arrest under Section 41 CrPC, citing Joginder Kumar as to the distinction between power to arrest and justification. The court also cites Chidambaram, Siddharth v. State of UP, and Manish Sisodia to emphasize that bail is the rule and detention is the exception. It holds custodial interrogation unnecessary; petitioners may be directed to surrender for interrogation, and if arrest is proposed, they may be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties. The order also cites Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal as guiding principles and directs conditions including appearance before IO within two weeks, non-leave of India, cooperation, and prohibition on committing similar offences. The final disposition grants bail with conditions.
Abdul Salam.K.P., the registered owner of a tipper lorry KL-10/U-2956, challenged Ext. P3, a District Collector order (dated 03.01.2013) confiscating his vehicle under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, on the allegation of river sand transport. The seizure originated on 17.05.2011 by Kalpakanchery Police; the petitioner contends the vehicle carried ordinary sand with mud from dry land and not river sand, and that no seizure mahazar was served. He filed Ext. P1 objections before the RDO. He later relied on Ext. P2 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 14697/2011 directing the District Collector to decide custody of the vehicle consistent with law and the Full Bench observations in Shan C.T v. State of Kerala. The District Collector subsequently fixed the vehicle’s value at Rs. 1,70,000 and permitted interim custody on remittance of 30% of the value; the petitioner deposited Rs.52,000 and obtained interim custody. Ext. P3 confiscated the vehicle with an option to deposit the value. The Court found no adjudication of the disputed issue in Ext. P3 and, without hearing the objection, quashed Ext. P3 and remitted the matter for proper reconsideration with notice and hearing within a month. The petition is allowed.
The petition, filed by A.P. Nazeer, a resident of Kavaratti Island and elected Chairperson of Village (Dweep) Panchayat Ward No.8, challenges Ext.P3 notification of the Administrator declaring areas as Panchayat areas under the Lakshadweep Panchayat Regulations, 2022 (LPR, 2022). The petitioner seeks to stay elections to Gram Panchayats under Ext.P3 until population data for the new Gram Panchayats are ascertained under Section 2(t) LPR, 2022. He contends Ext.P3, Ext.P4 (seats) and Ext.P6 (delimitation) are premature and ultra vires Part IX of the Constitution and Sections 8 and 12 of LPR, 2022, arguing that LPR, 1994 originally created island-wise Village (Dweep) Panchayats and that LPR, 2022 centralized power with the Administrator to declare Panchayat areas rather than align with island boundaries. The respondents defend the delimitation as a remedy to population-disparity, asserting that Article 243L allows exceptions and modifications in UTs; that census data at ward-level is impracticable; and that delimitation aims to achieve proportional representation. The court examines locus standi, constitutional provisions (Arts. 243L, 243C, 243D), and the transition from LPR, 1994 to LPR, 2022, ultimately holding that Ext.P3 (and Exts.P4, P6) are ultra vires for lack of population data and prior Governor notification, ordering immediate population ascertainment under Section 2(t) and halting further delimitation pending data.
The petitioner, a religious educational institution managed by the K.E. Abraham Foundation and registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, challenged a State order denying exemption from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 for parts of its campus at Eraviperoor. Although the Government granted exemption for some areas (bible college block, balcony, prayer hall, generator room, hostel area) subject to a pending appeal, it declined exemption for kitchen, dining hall, staff quarters and car porch, leading to assessment demands. The petitioner contends that the entire building is principally used for religious education and allied charitable activities; consequently, the exemption under Section 3(1)(b) should extend to the portions integral to the religious/educational purpose. The State Government and revenue authorities justify exemption only for portions found to be used for religious/educational purposes and maintain that areas like staff housing are not. The High Court relied on the concept of “principally” used for exemption and, citing Sacred Heart Hospital v. Secretary to Government (2011 (2) KLT 15) and Government of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent (2021 (2) KLT 270 (SC)), held that the exemption remains broad in operation and that the challenged orders could not be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the Government order and related assessment notices were quashed.
The petitioner, K. Naseema, a junior language teacher (Arabic) challenging the Government’s and authorities’ decisions depriving her of approval for appointment, filed a writ petition (WP(C) No. 16959 of 2011) seeking quash of Exhibits P-5, P-6, P-9 and P-11 and a mandamus to approve her appointment. She had prior service records with periods as an Upper Primary School Assistant and was reappointed as an Arabic Teacher in 2009 against a retirement vacancy. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the approval; the District Educational Officer and later the Director of Public Instruction also rejected the appeal. Ext. P11 purportedly conveyed that approval could be granted only after the appointment of a protected teacher, based on a government/RTI information set. The petitioner argued that, per Ciji P. Jose v. State of Kerala, a protected hand who is available and liable to deployment under executive orders should not supersede a Rule 51A claimant, and Ext. P11 was not a speaking order. The Government contended Ext. P11 should stand. The Court found Ext. P11 not to be a speaking order and relied on the Ciji P. Jose principle and RTI information (Ext. P15) showing only one protected teacher in Malappuram, who was deployed elsewhere. The petition was allowed with directions to reconsider the matter in light of these principles, provide an opportunity of hearing, and complete the process within four months.
This writ petition concerns six individuals (Valsamma Mathew, Manjith T. Mathew, Alex Ranjith Mathew, Regi Alex, Sheba Alex, Elsa Alex) who inherited property originally owned by Thomas Mathew and Alex P. Alex. After the deaths of the original executants, their legal heirs filed Ext.P11 for partition and claimed eligibility for the lesser stamp duty under Section 2(fb) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The Sub Registrar declined the benefit, prompting the petitioners to invoke judicial intervention. The court discusses Abdul Muneer v. Sub Registrar (2018 (1) KLT 238) as a Full Bench declaration that could render such heirs eligible; however, it ultimately finds Abdul Muneer inapplicable to the present facts since the petitioners and the original executants were not related across the relevant family branch. The judge analyzes the relationship constraint and rules that the petition cannot be granted based on the Abdul Muneer precedent alone. Nevertheless, the court leaves room for reconsideration by directing the Sub Registrar to adjudicate Ext.P11 and assess stamp duty, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Sub Registrar before 31.03.2022 and remit the duty. The court notes the stamp duty hike effective from 01.04.2022 and emphasizes that technicalities should not bar benefits if the petitioners comply with directions. The order ultimately directs registration conditioned on compliance with law.
ITA Nos. 11/2008; 12/2008; 279/2010; 282/2010; 292/2010 Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., a government company manufacturing IMFL, challenged tax orders treating rental income earned from leasing godowns and other premises to KSBC as income from house property instead of income from business. The appeals (ITA Nos. 11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010) were referred for judgment after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s and authorities’ adverse findings. The Kerala High Court examined a long line of precedents, including Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd, Sultan Brothers Private Ltd, Universal Plast Ltd, East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd, Karanpura Development Co. Ltd, Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd, and the Calcutta and other streams, to discern whether rental income from a commercial asset can be treated as business income. The court emphasized that no single, universal test exists; the classification depends on facts, the nature of the asset, the object of the transaction, and the broader business context. It scrutinized the ratio in Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery, noting that its broad proposition cannot be indiscriminately applied. The judgment underscored substance over form and the need to apply a balanced framework (Sultan Brothers, Universal Plast, etc.) to determine whether income from letting constitutes business income. Ultimately, the court held that on the facts, the rental income cannot be categorised as business income in this case and the revenue’s position is sustained; the appeals were dismissed.
WP(C) No. 28461 of 2018 (and connected cases) This batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court concerns KSRTC employees who were appointed on a provisional/empaneled basis and later faced termination or sought regularisation under a bipartite settlement of 2008 and subsequent Government Orders. The core dispute traverses the period from 2008 through 2018, involving Government orders dated 22.12.2011 (GO MS 78/2011), 21.11.2013 (GO MS 105/2013), and later GO 129/2018, as well as bilateral agreement clauses (XLVI General Matters, Sub-Clauses 5) and a series of Supreme Court judgments. The petitioners argue that many employees had obtained regularisation through individual court judgments or through KSRTC/government action prior to 2011, and that termination orders issued in contemplation of the Supreme Court’s 2017 Civil Appeals (4435–4438/2017) and related directives erode vested rights. The Court analyses Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013) and the Supreme Court’s 2017 order, holding that the Supreme Court’s declarations bind all, including those with earlier judgments, and that the government’s conditions of ten years’ service and 120 days of duty per year as of 21.12.2011 can be applied retrospectively. The judgment sets aside the impugned termination orders in these cases and directs a hearing to verify service records; if petitioners establish ten years of service and 120 days of duty until 21.12.2011, regularisation should be ordered within three months, with pensionary benefits where applicable. The decision also clarifies the scope of pre-2011 regularisations and directs the KSRTC to proceed with due process, ensuring opportunities to present documentary evidence. The judgment therefore blends, and ultimately upholds, the Supreme Court’s authoritative guidance while safeguarding due process for affected employees.
This is a bail application filed by accused nos. 1 to 3 and 7 in Crime No. 530/2022 of Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad District, before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The offenses cited are under sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 294(b), and 506(ii) read with section 149 IPC; later, a charge under section 354 IPC was added. The prosecution contends that on 29.12.2022, between 5:45 and 6:00 pm, the accused and others formed an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons, trespassed into the defacto complainant’s house, dragged him and his son to the courtyard, and assaulted them with iron rods, sticks, and stones, with the daughter attempting to intervene. The petitioners claim innocence and argue the allegations are false, relying on Annexure-2, an FIR in Crime 531/2022 where petitioners 1, 3 and 7 were victims; they contend the 531/2022 incident constitutes counter-allegations to the earlier crime. The Public Prosecutor opposes anticipatory bail. The court notes ongoing disputes among related parties but emphasizes cooperation with investigation. The order disposed of the bail application by directing surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks; upon surrender, the petitioners would be released on bail the same day on bond of Rs 1,00,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions including police custody if required, regular appearance, restriction on travel outside Kerala, and non-tampering with witnesses.
Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022; 10/2022; 11/2022; 12/2022; 13/2022; 14/2022; 15/2022; WP(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 This is a consolidated judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court delivering on Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022 to 15/2022 and WP(C) Nos.9058/2022 and 27835/2021. The case arises from CESTAT’s final order dated 17.02.2022, which allowed the importers’ appeals while the Revenue challenged the order on multiple grounds spanning the interplay between the Customs Act, 1962, and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, along with related SEZ Rules and the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The core dispute is whether actions in respect of gold seized in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and within a Cochin SEZ unit fall under SEZ–jurisdiction or Customs Act jurisdiction, and to what extent CESTAT could expand SEZ jurisdiction beyond the notified zone. The court analyzes the sequence of events: approvals, moves of gold from SEZ to DTA, searches/seizures in DTA, show cause notices, and subsequent Orders-in-Original and CESTAT orders, including the development of substantial questions of law under SEZ Act, especially Sections 21 and 22, and the interplay with the Customs Act sections on confiscation, penalties and duty. It ultimately rules on jurisdiction and remands or disposes as described below, while partially affirming and partially reversing CESTAT’s conclusions on jurisdiction. The decision also discusses the need to balance natural justice and due process with statutory powers, and references earlier Gujarat High Court jurisprudence on related issues, distinguishing certain precedents. The outcome remits matters to the CESTAT for fresh disposal and, in some writ petitions, sets aside appellate orders and remits for reconsideration.
This writ appeal challenges a Kerala High Court order that granted police protection to the petitioners (R1–R7) in WP(C) 10351/2022 against threats from the appellant, Prakashan, and others. The petitioners claim title under Ext. P4, a final decree in O.S. No.168 of 1989, and assert that Ext. P7 delivery report and Ext. P8 delivery receipt put them in possession of the subject property. The appellant and respondent No.11 contend that possession was delivered after, and during, execution proceedings stayed by Ext. R4(a) dated 17.08.2011, rendering the delivery illegal; they also allege lack of notice of Exts. P7–P8 to them. The Single Judge held that Ext. R4(a) stay merged with the final judgment, so the delivery in 2012 could not be resisted on the stay basis, and the second appeal against Ext. P5 was not live due to delay. The Division Bench, citing a Supreme Court proposition (Prem Chopra) that interim orders merge with final judgments, affirmed that the stay had no independent legs. It noted that the law protects the diligent, not the indolent, and that the appellants did not timely challenge the delivery. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Hyder Haji, the landlord, seeks eviction of tenant Tajudheen Ahamed under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Tirur, had issued an ex parte eviction order in RCP No. 104 of 2016 on 10 January 2020. The tenant moved to set aside the eviction; the petition was restored to file on 01 April 2022. Thereafter, the landlord filed I.A. No. 7 of 2022 under Section 12, seeking deposit of admitted arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,50,000, with the tenant yet to file objections. The petitioner contends that delay in disposal of the pending proceedings and the interlocutory application causes genuine hardship given the petitioner’s age (71 years). The court discusses Section 12, including its sub-sections: the tenant must deposit all admitted arrears and continue to pay future rent to maintain contestability in eviction proceedings under Sections 11 and 18, with deposit timelines as fixed by the court and the proviso ensuring reasonable time. It cites J. Ramkumar v. Ashok Jacob, Shiraz K.V. v. Binny Emmatty, and Abdul Razak P.M. v. K.C. Thomas to underline the obligations of the tenant and time-bound disposal. The judgment disposes the petition by directing the Rent Control Court to decide I.A.7/2022 within two months and to conclude RCP No. 104 of 2016 within three months, after giving the tenant an opportunity to file objections, at the earliest.
