Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC

In a notable ruling, the Kerala High Court set aside an ex parte eviction order in the case of Sajeevan Swamy v. Mini Johnson & Ors. (OP (RC) No. 88 of 2024), ruling that even when a tenant is absent in proceedings, the court must independently assess the landlord’s claim before granting eviction. The division bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that the Rent Control Court had mechanically granted eviction without evaluating the merits of the case, violating fundamental judicial principles.

"An ex parte order does not mean a blind endorsement of the petitioner's claims. The court remains duty-bound to ensure that the claim is bona fide and supported by evidence," the court emphasized.

The dispute arose from a rental eviction petition (RCP No. 22 of 2011) filed by Johnson (since deceased), who sought possession of a property under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court, Irinjalakuda, allowed the eviction on January 31, 2015, after Sajeevan Swamy (tenant) failed to appear, resulting in an ex parte order.

Following this, Sajeevan filed an application to set aside the ex parte order but failed to attach a petition for condoning the delay, leading to its dismissal. His subsequent appeal was also dismissed for default, as he claimed he was unaware of the case transfer from Thrissur District Court to the Additional District Court, Irinjalakuda.

In 2023, Sajeevan sought to restore his appeal with a delay condonation request for 1535 days, citing lack of knowledge about the appeal’s dismissal and difficulty in tracing the landlord’s legal heirs after the original petitioner’s death. The Appellate Authority rejected the request, leading him to approach the High Court.

The Kerala High Court took serious note of the Rent Control Court’s conduct, finding that its ex parte order was issued without any substantive assessment of the evidence. The judgment highlighted critical failures in due process, stating: "When a court proceeds ex parte, it does not mean that it can abandon its judicial function of examining the merits of the claim. The burden to prove entitlement to relief still rests with the landlord."

Analyzing the ex parte order dated January 31, 2015 (Ext. R2(a)), the court found that the Rent Control Court merely recited the documents submitted by the landlord and granted eviction without reasoning. The relevant part of the eviction order stated:

"The unrebutted evidence adduced by the petitioner entitles him to an order for getting vacant possession of the building."

Rejecting this mechanical approach, the High Court ruled: "An ex parte decision does not grant the petitioner an automatic victory. The court must assess the evidence and satisfy itself of the claim’s validity. The absence of a defendant does not waive the requirement of proving a case in accordance with law."

The court further noted that Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act mandates that the Rent Control Court must be satisfied of the landlord’s bona fide claim before ordering eviction. Emphasizing judicial standards, the court stated:

"The satisfaction of the court as to the genuineness of the landlord’s claim is a necessary condition for a valid eviction order. An order passed without such satisfaction is a nullity and unsustainable in law."

The Kerala High Court acknowledged Sajeevan Swamy’s lack of diligence in pursuing his case, remarking that:

"The petitioner woke up only when the execution petition was filed. A party cannot sit on their rights indefinitely and expect automatic leniency."

However, the court weighed this against the gravity of the procedural lapse in the ex parte eviction order and concluded that the matter should be remitted to the Rent Control Court for fresh adjudication.

The Kerala High Court set aside the ex parte eviction order and remitted the case back to the Rent Control Court, Irinjalakuda, for a fresh hearing. The court imposed a cost of ₹15,000 on Sajeevan Swamy, to be deposited within 30 days, failing which the earlier ex parte order would stand revived.

"We would have ordinarily dismissed the petition given the tenant’s negligence, but the fundamental errors in the Rent Control Court’s order cannot be overlooked. The law does not permit courts to grant eviction orders merely because the evidence is unrebutted; there must be an independent judicial satisfaction of the claim," the court ruled.

The court directed all parties to appear before the Rent Control Court on February 27, 2025, and ordered the matter to be disposed of by April 11, 2025.

This ruling reinforces that ex parte proceedings do not relieve the court of its duty to evaluate the merits of a case. It serves as a reminder that judicial satisfaction is essential before granting eviction under rent control laws, even when the tenant fails to appear. The judgment strikes a balance between the need for judicial discipline and the necessity of ensuring that eviction claims are not granted without due scrutiny.
 

Date of Decision: 14 February 2025