Revision petition dismissed — ruling against Abdullakutty (Revision Petitioner/Tenant)
In Short
A landlord wanted his rented shop back because the tenant had fallen behind on rent and secretly handed the space over to other people to run a chicken shop. Lower courts agreed with the landlord, and the High Court upheld that decision, confirming the tenant must vacate.
The Parties
Party A: Abdullakutty
Party B: Sakkariya
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Mr. Jamsheed Hafiz, Learned Advocate Ms. T.S. Sreekutty, Learned Advocate Ms. Fathima Nasreen S.
For Party B: Learned Advocate Ms. Deepa Narayanan, Learned Advocate Mr. K. Sujai Sathian, Learned Advocate Ms. Preethi P.V., Learned Advocate Ms. Mary Liya Sabu, Learned Advocate Ms. Aiswarya S. Ashokan, Learned Advocate Mr. Neeraj Krishna Kumar
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice Sathish Ninan, Hon'ble Justice P. Krishna Kumar
What the Case Was About
The landlord rented out a building for a grocery shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500, which later increased to Rs. 2,660. The landlord claimed the tenant stopped paying rent and secretly handed the shop over to someone else who ran a chicken business called 'Al-Taj Chickens' for a daily rent of Rs. 1,000. The tenant denied subletting the space, claiming he ran the shop through his staff and kept up with his rent. After lower authorities decided against the tenant, he brought the dispute to the High Court.
Judgment Date
24 October, 2026
The Outcome
The revision petition was dismissed, meaning the tenant lost his case and must leave the property. However, the court gave the tenant four months to hand over the empty shop, provided he pays rent on time and files an unconditional promise to vacate.
What the Court Looked At
- The tenant did not challenge his liability to pay unpaid rent and interest, choosing only to argue about whether he sublet the shop.
- Court-appointed commissioners found a chicken shop operating under the name 'Al-Taj Chickens' with a phone number belonging to a man named Kunju.
- The tenant claimed Kunju and another man named Shihab were merely his employees, but he never brought either man to court to testify.
- The tenant admitted he had lived abroad for nearly ten years right after renting the building.
- Legal precedent shows that once a landlord proves an outsider is running the shop, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove that person is an employee, which the tenant failed to do.
"The only possible inference from the above facts is that the tenanted premises were occupied by those persons, and not the petitioner."
What This Means For You
If you rent a property, you must actually use it yourself or through genuine employees whose employment you can clearly prove with solid evidence. In this case, the tenant got into trouble because he lived abroad for ten years and let other people run a business in his rented room without being able to prove they were legitimate staff. If someone else is found running a business in your rented space and you cannot prove they work directly for you, the law assumes you illegally handed over the property, and you can lose your lease. Setback Solutions can help you understand your options and coordinate the next steps in plain language if you face a similar tenancy dispute.
You Still Have Options
Facing a rental eviction order or a dispute over your leased property can feel overwhelming and stressful. You do not have to navigate complex landlord-tenant rules alone when you are unsure what steps to take next. Whether you need a second opinion on your case or guidance on non-judicial options, support is available. Reach out to Setback Solutions for plain-language help and coordination to understand your options and plan your next steps. Please note that Setback Solutions is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or guarantee any specific legal outcome.