Extension Granted: Supreme Court Balances Eviction Decree with Business Reality in Kerala Rent Case.


16 October 2025 Special Leave Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Dispute with Tenant/Landlord >> Property & Real Estate  

The Supreme Court of India, on October 16, 2025, invoked its inherent equitable jurisdiction and allowed a significant extension to a tenant against whom an eviction order had been passed, highlighting the fine line the judiciary needs to tread between the rights of an owner of property and the large-scale dislocation caused to a tenant conducting business.
The issue cropped up through the rejection of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the tenant, M V Joy, against the final order of the High Court of Kerala confirming the eviction.

The Finality of the Eviction Decree:

The eviction proceedings had attained finality with the order dated August 22, 2025, of the Kerala High Court in RCR No. 148 of 2025. The High Court, dismissing the revision application of the tenant, had already been lenient to some extent by ordering a three-month grace period for the tenant's surrender of vacant possession, subject to conditions enumerated below:
  • Submission of an unconditional undertaking to deliver possession on or before November 19, 2025.
  • Paying all arrears of rent within a month and thereafter regular payment of rent without default.
  • An explicit proviso that any failure to adhere to the terms would automatically forfeit the time allowed.
The petitioner had accordingly suffered an order of eviction and was constrained by the 19th of November, 2025 deadline set by the High Court.

 

 

The Humane Intervention by the Supreme Court:

At the hearing before the Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, Bench the relevant fact that the petitioner was operating a "wine and beer parlour" in the subject premises was brought to the notice of the Court. The said learned Senior Advocate, Mr. P.B. Sureshkumar, made a passionate plea for more time, mentioning the operational intricacies and time needed to wind up or shift such a licensed establishment.

Recognizing the practical challenges in relocating an enterprise of this kind, and presumably taking into account the deprivation of livelihood and business continuity, the Apex Court proceeded to alter the final order to a large extent. The Court was decidedly instructed by the principle of minimizing hardship while upholding the sanctity of the decree of eviction.

Extended Stay and Mandatory Undertaking:

The Supreme Court granted the period of surrendering vacant and peaceful possession up to March 31, 2026, from November 19, 2025.
In return for this great relief, the Bench imposed a reciprocal, non-negotiable obligation on the tenant:
  • The petitioner shall submit an Undertaking on Oath before the Registry of the Supreme Court within two weeks, specifically saying they will surrender vacant and peaceful possession on or before March 31, 2026.
  • The tenant is required to keep on paying the use and occupation charges (plus any arrears) up to the extended date of surrender.
  • The Court directed the Registry to re-list the matter within two weeks to facilitate compliance with filing of the undertaking and expressing confirmation of the seriousness of this order.
This directive is a classic example of the pragmatic spirit of the Supreme Court in the context of rent regulation. Though the Court declined to interfere with the substantive aspects of the eviction order (the 'no-fault' aspect of the dismissal of the SLP), it exercised its overriding jurisdiction to prevent the enforcement of the order from leading to an instant and avoidable debacle for the business of the tenant. The deferment till the end of the accounting year is a nod to commercial reality.

But the relief is conditional and closely monitored. The 'Undertaking on Oath' submitted before the Apex Court is a solemn commitment; a breach would be a contempt of the Supreme Court. For the tenant, this extension is a last respite, and not vacating by March 31, 2026, will most likely be accompanied by speedy and summary execution proceedings.

The clock is ticking on an iron schedule, imposed by the country's supreme court.