M.K. Noorudeen Vs Mohammed Idries

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶7

RCREV. NO.62 OF 2025

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2025 IN RCA NO.56 OF 2024 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VIII, ERNAKULAM / IV
ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2024 IN
RCP NO.67 OF 2020 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM (RENT CONTROL)

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶10

M.K. NOORUDEEN
AGED 54 YEARS

¶11

S/O. MUSTHAFA, CITY BAG HOUSE AND FOOTWEAR, CLOTH BAZAR
ROAD, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031

¶12

BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
ANUROS MARTIN
ATHIRA K.S.

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

MOHAMMED IDRIES

¶15

S/O. MOHAMMED RAFIQUE, RESIDING AT C.C.42/2318 (NEW
NO.68/1234) K2 LINK HERITAGE, FLAT NO.10C, CHITTOOR ROAD,
KOCHI, PIN - 682018

¶16

BY ADV J.R.PREM NAVAZ J.R

¶17

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON 07.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

RCREV. NO.62 OF 2025

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

2025:KER:30894

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025

¶23

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶24

This revision is filed by the tenant challenging an order under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). This is the second round of litigation. The landlord claims that rent arrears are due from January 2019 onwards at the rate of Rs.1,45,000/- per month. The tenant would contend that the rent payable is only Rs.5,000/- per month. When the initial order was passed, there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim made by the landlord that the rent payable is Rs.1,45,000/- per month.

¶25

In R.C.Rev. No. 153/2022 filed before this Court, the landlord produced a copy of a rent deed submitted by the tenant before the GST authority. Therefore, the matter was remanded for reconsideration before the Rent Control Court. We find that the Rent

¶26

RCREV. NO.62 OF 2025

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

2025:KER:30894

¶29

Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority entered into

¶30

a fact finding as to the rate of rent, relying on the following aspects:

¶31

i The rent deed produced by the tenant before the GST authority.

¶32

ii. A cheque bearing No.933201, dated 03/01/2020, drawn on UCO Bank, Ernakulam branch, issued by the tenant for a sum of Rs.15,95,000/- in favour of the landlord, which was dishonoured.

¶33

iii. No reply was given by the tenant to the quit notice demanding arrears of rent.

¶34

The learned counsel for the tenant submits that the tenant disputes execution of the rent deed and therefore, the matter requires adjudication. Further, it is submitted that when the matter requires adjudication, the Rent Control Court cannot direct the tenant to pay the rent as demanded by the landlord.

¶35

It is to be noted that the tenant had produced this rent

¶36

deed before the GST authority for registration. That means, he had no dispute regarding the rent deed when he produced it before the

¶37

RCREV. NO.62 OF 2025

¶38

-:4:-

¶39

2025:KER:30894

¶40

GST authority. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that when the rent deed was summoned by the Court from the GST authority, the tenant did not raise any dispute as to the signature in it. The tenant raised a contention regarding the insufficiency of the stamp and accordingly, the landlord was forced to pay about Rs.17 lakhs towards stamp duty and penalty. It is a mandate under the law that, for a tenant to contest the matter, he has to pay the admitted arrears of rent. The court cannot take a mechanical approach to accept the admission of the tenant. If the tenant, in order to wriggle out of his liability, raises false claims in regard to rent, the court should frown upon such tactics adopted by the tenant. What is disclosed in the rent deed, unless and until disproved, will have to be taken as the admitted rent. In Gopala Panicker Baiju and another v. Mallika [2018 (5) KHC 95] and Mohammed Idries v. M.K.Noorudeen (2023 KHC Online 9448), the Division Bench of this Court held that admitted arrears of rent can be inferred from the rent deed or rent receipts. In a matter like this, when the landlord claims

¶41

RCREV. NO.62 OF 2025

¶42

-:5:-

¶43

2025:KER:30894

¶44

rent at the rate of Rs.1,45,000/- and when the tenant claims that he is liable to pay only Rs.5000/-, it can be seen that the tenant is attempting to throw the entire process of Court in air and defeat the very objective of the law. Therefore, admitted arrears of rent have to be understood as the rent payable by the tenant as disclosed from the materials before the Court at the time of passing the order under Section 12(1) of the Act. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority had entered the fact finding on a proper perspective.

¶45

The tenant had also issued a cheque bearing No.933201, dated 03/01/2020, drawn on UCO Bank, Ernakulam Branch, for a sum of Rs.15,95,000/-, in favour of the landlord, which was dishonoured, and he was subsequently convicted by the criminal court. If the rent is calculated at the rate admitted by the tenant, it would in no way come to the amount as stated in the cheque. We also note that when the tenant got a first opportunity to refute the claim of the landlord’s demand for arrears of rent at the rate of

¶46

Rs.1,45,000/-, he had not opted to respond to the notice.

¶47

RCREV. NO.62 OF 2025

¶48

-:6:-

¶49

2025:KER:30894

¶50

In the above circumstances, we find that the tenant is attempting to evade his liability towards the arrears of rent. Accordingly, the rent control revision is dismissed. We order the execution court to expedite the execution proceedings, which are stated to be pending there.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶55

ms

M.K. Noorudeen v. Mohammed Idries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K. Noorudeen v. Mohammed Idries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.B.Wilson Vs State of Kerala

V.A Abdul Kareem Vs K.K Lajid

Baby Shylamma Vs State of Kerala

Dr Ranjith Ram, S/O a Raman, Vs State of Kerala

P.Gopalakrishnan@Dileep Vs State of Kerala

Sinaj Vs Parvathi Prabhakaran