Kerala High Court Full Bench To Decide If Fresh Notification Needed To Apply Rent Control Act In Municipality Area Converted From Panchayat

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 31) constituted a Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Gopinath P. and Justice G. Girish to consider the question whether a further Notification under Section 1(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act, 1965 would be required if a Panchayat becomes a Municipality, to make the Act applicable to the area.

The present petition was filed by the tenants of a building seeking to stay the execution proceedings in EP No.402/2023 before the Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba, including the delivery of possession of the building. They also prayed for a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive step based on the eviction order passed in the suit, and thereafter, confirmed in appeal and revision. 

The area upon which the building was situated was located in Koothuparamba Panchayat, which became a Municipality with effect from 01.04.1990. Therefore, the petitioners contended that even though the Rent Control Act was applicable to the Panchayat, the same would not automatically apply to the area, after its conversion to Municipality. According to them, a fresh notification under Section 1(3) is required to make the Act applicable to the Municipality.

The Division Bench, which was originally considering the case, disagreed with the finding of another Division Bench of the Court in OP (RC) No.154/2024 wherein it was held that when an area in a Panchayat later becomes part of a Municipality, a fresh Notification is required.

"Under Section 1(3) of the Act, Notification is in respect of the area and not based on the nature of the local authority. Once the area is notified, whether it later becomes Panchayat, or Corporation has no impact unless the area is excluded by separate Notification," Court said.

Thus, the question was referred to the full bench.

During the course of the hearing today, the Full bench inquired whether the original notification notifying this area when it was panchayat was on record. The bench sought to find out whether the geographical area of the panchayat was stipulated in the notification to warrant requirement of new notification, in case the newly formed municipality included areas other than those of the erstwhile panchayat.

Thereupon, it was replied that the panchayat was included in the Schedule of the Act and was not added later by notification.

"If the panchayat has now become municipality, then in the Schedule there is a non-existent entry? How will that anomaly be resolved? Because area is under a non-existent Panchayat...Correspondingly, it must be corrected in the Schedule. Statutory provisions cannot have superfluous or redundant expressions. How can a part of the Act continue to have an anomaly and redundancy? It needs to be corrected in some manner known to law...Apart from this matter, you have to consider the workability of a statute," Court orally observed.

The full bench also looked in detail into the reference order, judgment in OP (RC) No. 154/2024, and applicable case laws including the decisions of the Single Bench in Biyyathu v. Abdurahimankutty (1995 KHC 95) and Karam Veettil Parukutty Amma v. Muhammedkutty [2013 (1) KHC 56].

"The section contemplates two types of inclusion under the umbrella of the Act. One is, originally when the Act was enacted and the Schedule that was brought in. That is a legislative process. The second is by way of a notification, the delegation legislation...where you can include some areas for which the whole gamut is provided for: hearing of the panchayat, etc. Some machinery must be provided under the Act, how to amend that Schedule. You can't go back to the legislature to amend an entry," the Court orally remarked.

After going through all the decisions on the topic, the Full bench orally stated that it would defer the hearing to a later date to consider what the implications of these are.

Case No: ICR (OP (RC) ) 12/2025 and connected case

Case Title: Vadavathi Rajeevan and Ors. v. K. Vanaja and Ors. 

Counsel for the petitioners: K.V. Pavithran, Jayanandan Madayi Puthiyaveetil, Jithin S. Sundaran, Adarsh Kurian

Counsel for the respondents: R. Surendran

Click to Read/Download Reference Order

Click to Read/Download Judgement in OP (RC) No. 154/2024