Valson v. Suja K.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 2ND POUSHA, 1943** **R.C.REV.NO. 182 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2021 IN I.A.NO.4 OF 2021 IN R.C.A.NO.154 OF 2018 PREFERRED AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2021 IN R.C.A.NO.154 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-V), KOZHIKODE AND THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2018 IN R.C.P.NO.2 OF 2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF-II), KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **VALSON AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, MADATHIL HOUSE, NANMINDA AMSOM, NANMINDA DESOM, NANMINDA P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 612.** **BY ADVS. T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR T.O.DEEPA** ## **RESPONDENT:** **SUJA K.** **AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SATHYAN, KAIPRAM VEETTIL, KOKKALLOOR AMSOM, PANAYI DESOM, KOKKALLOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 612.** **BY ADV SANTHARAM.P** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2021, THE COURT ON 23.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 ## **O R D E R** Ajithkumar, J. This Rent Control Revision was filed by the respondenttenant in the Rent Control Petition No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff-II), Kozhikode. That R.C.P was filed by the respondent seeking eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Eviction was ordered under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed R.C.A.No.154 of 2018 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-V), Kozhikode. In that appeal, the respondent filed I.A.No.2682 of 2019 under Section 12 of the Act. Direction of the Appellate Authority to deposit/pay arrears of rent was not complied with by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building under Section 12(3) of the Act, within 30 days from the date of that order. R.C.A. was dismissed as well. The petitioner filed I.A.No.4 of 2021 seeking review of the order dismissing the 3 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 appeal. That I.A. was dismissed as per order dated 22.11.2021. The order on the review petition and also the order dismissing the appeal are assailed in this revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the direction of the Appellate Authority was to deposit/pay arrears of rent as a condition for stay of execution of the order in the R.C.P. In the wake of COVID-19 pandemic situation, the petitioner was not in a position to immediately pay the arrears of rent, and therefore, he sought extension of time for making payment. The time granted for the payment was extended for a short while, but without affording sufficient time, the Appellate Authority not only dismissed the appeal, but also proceeded to issue an order directing the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building. The Appellate Authority did not consider 4 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 the fact that the petitioner showed sufficient cause for nonpayment. The petitioner was not afforded with sufficient time before passing the order under Section 12(3) of the Act. The contentions of the petitioner on merits should have been considered by the Appellate Authority, especially when he has a contention that the title of the respondent to the petition schedule building was on the basis of a sham document. On those grounds, the petitioner wanted to set aside the order dismissing the appeal as well as order on I.A.No.4 of 2021. 4. The Rent Control Court as per order dated 14.06.2018 ordered eviction of the petitioner under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The petitioner was directed to put the respondent in vacant possession of the building, within 60 days from the date of that order. R.C.A.No.154 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner challenging the said order. The respondent appeared in that appeal and filed I.A.No.2682 of 2019 under Section 12 of the Act. That application was filed on 16.11.2019. It was on 08.09.2021 the petitioner was directed to deposit the admitted arrears of rent on or before 5 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 07.10.2021. Of course, there was no order directing to continue to pay the rent for the subsequent period, although provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act obliges the court to pass such an order as well. It is seen that the Appellate Authority postponed the case thereby affording more time to make payment of arrears of rent till 29.10.2021. On 30.10.2021, the Appellate Authority took up the matter for consideration and on finding that the arrears of rent was not paid even by that date and no sufficient explanation was offered, ordered under Section 12(3) of the Act the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the building to the respondentlandlord. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic more time should have been granted by the court. That apart, after granting time for payment upto 29.10.2021, the order of eviction was passed on 30.10.2021, without affording a further opportunity to show cause, and for that reason, the order under Section 12(3) of the Act is illegal. 6 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 6. The Appellate Authority has stated in the impugned order that the application under Section 12 of the Act was filed as early as on 16.11.2019. That shows that the petitioner got information regarding the requirement of his making payment of the arrears of rent as also the rent for the subsequent period in order for his getting entitlement to prosecute the appeal. It is true that only on 08.09.2021 a direction to deposit or pay the entire arrears of rent was passed. One month was granted for making the payment. Of course, the matter was adjourned by the Appellate Authority by affording more time to make the payment. Only on finding that the petitioner failed to make the payment or furnish any cause for not making the payment, the impugned order was passed on 30.10.2021. The Appellate Authority after taking into account all such matters dismissed I.A.No.4 of 2021, the review petition, as per order dated 22.11.2021. 7. This Court in **J.Ramkumar v. Ashok Jacob [2021 (6) KLT Online 1112]** laid down the parameters for invoking Section 12(3) of the Act to make a summary order of 7 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 eviction. It was held that if the tenant failed to make the payment or deposit of the arrears of rent as per the order of the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority within the stipulated time, the court is not obliged to issue any notice asking the tenant to show cause why eviction shall not be ordered. It is enough to provide the tenant an opportunity to furnish his explanation for the non-compliance of the direction to deposit or pay the arrears of rent. It is for the tenant to avail that opportunity and if he does not do so, the inevitable consequence is eviction. The decision of this Court in **J.Ramkumar** (supra) was challenged by the tenant before the Apex Court by filing S.L.P.(C) No.18301 of 2021. The Apex Court considered the said S.L.P. along with other connected S.L.Ps. and as per Order dated 18.11.2021 refused leave to appeal. Thereby the decision of this Court in **J.Ramkumar** (supra) stands affirmed. In **J.Ramkumar** (supra) this Court held thus,- '12. Section 12 of the Act deals with payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. 8 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 As per Section 12(1), no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that Section, or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. As per Section 12(2), the deposit under subsection (1) shall be made within such time as the court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed for the service of notice referred to in sub-section (4). As per the proviso to Section 12(2), the time fixed by the court for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the order and the time 9 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due **shall not be less than two weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due** . As per Section 12(3) of the Act, if any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. As per Section 12(4), when any deposit is made under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord in the prescribed manner, and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority in that behalf. 13. Section 12(1) of the Act enjoins a tenant, against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, to pay to the landlord, or deposit with the Rent Control Court, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building, up to the date of payment or deposit, and 10 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, in order to contest that application for eviction before the Rent Control Court. Similarly, Section 12(1) of the Act enjoins a tenant, in order to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act against any order made by the Rent Control Court on an application made by a landlord under Section 11, to pay the landlord, or deposits with the Appellate Authority, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority. 14. The liability of a tenant under Section 12(1) of the Act, against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, or who prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, against any order made by the Rent Control Court on an application made by a landlord under Section 11, is limited to all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of 11 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 the building, up to the date of payment or deposit, and he shall continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. 15. The object of the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act is to deny the defaulting tenant the right to contest the application for eviction before the Rent Control Court, or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act against any order made by the Rent Control Court on an application made by a landlord under Section 11, unless he pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by him to be due in respect of the building, up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. 16. Section 12(2) of the Act enjoins a tenant to deposit the admitted rent under sub-section (1), within such 12 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 time as the court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed. The time fixed by the court for the deposit of the arrears of rent and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than that specified in the proviso to Section 12(2). As per the statutory mandate of Section 12(1), on an application filed by the landlord under Section 12, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, has to order payment or deposit of arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the petition schedule building, up to the date of payment or deposit and the tenant shall also be directed to continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, regardless of the relief sought for in that application. As per Section 12(3) of the Act, if any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. 13 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 ## 17. In **Pochappan Narayanan v. Gopalan [1990 (2)** **KLT 1]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that, Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with consequences flowing as a result of the failure on the part of the tenant to pay or deposit admitted rent. When the tenant fails to pay or deposit the admitted rent, as provided in Section 12(1) and (2), the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, will be required to ask the tenant to show cause why all further proceedings should not be stopped and an order be made directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. When such an opportunity is afforded to the tenant, the tenant is entitled to show, if there is sufficient cause, for his failure to pay the amount or deposit the rent as provided in Section 12(1) and (2). If the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not making the payment or deposit of the rent within time, it will not make any order stopping further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. If, however, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority is not satisfied about the cause shown, an order has to be made stopping all further 14 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. 18. In **Pochappan Narayanan** the Division Bench held that, before the consequences contemplated by Section 12(3) of the Act can ensue, the conditions specified in Section 12(1) and (2) have to be satisfied. It is therefore clear that, before any steps can be taken under Section 12(3) for making an order against the tenant who has committed default in paying or making the deposit as contemplated by Section 12(1), the procedure prescribed by Section 12(2) has to be satisfied. A tenant who does not fulfill the obligations imposed on him by Section 12(1) cannot be visited with the penal consequences contemplated by Section 12(3), unless all the conditions specified by Section 12(2) are satisfactorily fulfilled. Even after the court acts in accordance with Section 12(2) and the tenant still commits default, the tenant has to be given one more opportunity of showing cause as to why penal consequences contemplated by Section 12(3) should not be imposed on him. It is only when the court is not satisfied with the cause shown that it can pass an order stopping all further proceedings and directing the tenant 15 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 to put the landlord in possession of the building. 19. In **Narayanan v. Vinod [2004 (3) KLT 955]** the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was assailed before the Division Bench, on the ground that the petitioner-tenant was not granted time as stipulated in Section 12(2) to deposit the arrears of rent and that, he had not been issued with any notice under Section 12(3) to show sufficient cause for not depositing the rent and, therefore, the order directing eviction of the tenant is contrary to the provisions of Section 12. The Division Bench noticed that, the provisions of Section 12 of the Act are mandatory and no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord is entitled to contest the same or to prefer an appeal under Section 18, against any order passed by the Rent Control Court, unless he had paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Rent Control Court or with the Appellate Authority, all arrears of rent admitted by him to be due in respect of the demised premises up to the date of payment and continues to pay or deposit the rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building 16 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority. Section 12(3) of the Act then mandates that if any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority shall ‘unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary’ stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the demised premises. In other words, if the admitted rent due is not deposited during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, all further proceedings have to stop and the authority concerned is required to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in vacant possession of the premises, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause for not depositing that rent. 20. In **Narayanan** , on the question as to whether the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, where admitted rent has not been paid, is required to issue a separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for the default in payment of admitted rent or is it for the tenant himself to file an application and bring to the notice of the Rent 17 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 Control Court or the Appellate Authority the reasons which prevented him from depositing the rent, the Division Bench held that, if the admitted arrears of rent are not deposited within the time fixed by the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority the tenant makes a default resulting in the penal consequences of his immediate eviction by stopping all further proceedings. This, however, will not happen if the tenant is able to show sufficient cause for making the default in not depositing the admitted rent. From the language of Section 12(3) of the Act and the legislative intent, it is not for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority to issue any separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent. When the time fixed for the deposit of arrears of rent runs out and the tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not expected to pass an order of ejectment of the tenant forthwith. 21. In **Narayanan** the Division Bench held that, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, while fixing the time within which the arrears of rent shall be 18 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 deposited by the tenant should normally adjourn the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date fixed for depositing the rent, thereby allowing reasonable time to the tenant to show sufficient cause for not depositing the rent, if he has committed default in payment. It will then be for the tenant to move an application before the concerned authority to show sufficient cause for the non-payment of rent. In other words, the interval between the date up to which the rent is to be deposited and the date on which the order under Section 12(3) is passed should be reasonable to enable the tenant to show sufficient cause for committing the default, if he so chooses. If the tenant moves such an application and points out the reasons which prevented him from depositing the arrears of admitted rent, the concerned authority will examine the issue on merits to find out whether sufficient cause has been shown or not. If sufficient cause has been shown, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority will not order immediate ejectment of the tenant. If no application is filed by the tenant or if the reasons shown by the tenant are insufficient, the penal consequences as contemplated in Section 12(3) of the Act shall follow. 19 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 Section 12(3) of the Act is a mandate to the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority to order immediate ejectment of the tenant, if the tenant does not deposit the admitted arrears of rent, the only exception being, if he is able to show sufficient cause for not doing so. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench concluded that, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, where admitted rent has not been deposited by the tenant, is not required to issue any separate notice to the tenant, to enable him to show sufficient cause for committing the default. 22. In **Shaji M. v. SNDP Sakhayogam No.610, Alappuzha and another [2020 (2) KHC 574]** a Full Bench of this Court held that, in view of the principle evolved in **Narayanan [2004 (3) KLT 955]** , from the language of Section 12(3) of the of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and from the legislative intent, it is not for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority to issue any separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent. Instead, when the time fixed for deposit of the arrears of rent runs out 20 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 and the tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not expected to pass an order ordering ejectment of the tenant forthwith. The Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should normally adjourn the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date fixed for deposit, thereby allowing reasonable time to the tenant to show sufficient cause for not depositing the rent, if he has committed default in payment of the arrears of rent. The interpretation made and the directions issued in **Narayanan** is more apt and appropriate to be held, as a view which can be legally sustained. The opportunity to be afforded to the tenant to show sufficient cause with respect to the failure to pay or deposit rent, as directed in Section 12(1) and (2), within the date stipulated, is not an empty formality. The principles of natural justice would mandate that the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should afford the tenant with such an opportunity. 23. In **Shaji M.** , on the question as to whether the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority is required to issue any specific notice to the tenant to show cause, 21 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 the Full Bench noticed that, the consequences provided under Section 12(3) of the Act follows when there occurred a default in complying with the direction for deposit or payment of the admitted arrears. Therefore, on the date stipulated for effecting such payment, by virtue of the order passed under Section 12(1) and (2), the tenant becomes fully aware that, unless sufficient cause has not been shown for the default committed, the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and direction to put the landlord in possession of the building, would follow automatically. Therefore, there is no necessity to alert the tenant by issuing any specific notice in this regard, calling upon him to show sufficient cause. On the other hand, providing of a further opportunity after the last date stipulated for effecting the payment or the deposit, is mandatory. If no sufficient cause is shown within such extended date to which the rent control petition is posted, it is absolutely within the authority and competence; and is the natural consequence that the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should stop the proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Such a procedure, if 22 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 followed, would be sufficient compliance for providing reasonable opportunity satisfying the statutory requirement contained in Section 12(3). Hence the Full Bench concluded that the decision in **Narayanan [2004 (3) KLT 955]** , even though passed without noticing the decision in **Pochappan Narayanan [1990 (2) KLT 1]** had laid the correct law. The Full Bench noticed that its view in this regard has got support from the decision of the Apex Court in **Sankaran Pillai v. V.P. Venuguduswami [(1999) 6 SCC 396]** , the decisions of this Court in **C.V. Xavier v. Francis Leonard Pappali [1975 KLT 542]** and **Narayanan v. Muraleedhara Maran [1964 KLT 509].** 24. In **Sankaran Pillai v. V.P. Venuguduswami [(1999) 6 SCC 396]** the Apex Court held that, it is for the tenant to show sufficient cause and not for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, to issue any show cause notice calling upon the tenant to show cause why an order of eviction shall not be passed. 25. In **C.V. Xavier v. Francis Leonard Pappali [1975 KLT 542]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, the reasonable opportunity contemplated under Section 23 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 12(3) of the Act must be a reasonable and real opportunity and is not an empty formality and that, if the tenant is not given such opportunity to show sufficient cause, an order passed under Section 12(3) would be unsustainable. 26. In **Narayanan v. Muraleedhara Maran [1964 KLT 509]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, when the court had passed an order directing a party before it to do a particular thing, in default of which certain consequence is to follow, if the party is to be relieved of the consequences of any non-compliance of that order, he has to make a specific motion thereof showing - sufficient cause for his non compliance of the order and making appropriate prayer therein. Otherwise the order would work itself out and the default to comply with it will bring the appointed consequences on the tenant.' 8. In the light of the above proposition of law, there is no necessity to alert the tenant by a separate notice calling upon him to show cause. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 12(3) of the Act on 30.10.2021 without issuing a further notice to show cause, cannot be said to be incorrect. 24 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has subsequently deposited the entire rent in arrears and therefore, the Appellate Authority ought to have reviewed its order under Section 12(3) and recalled it. In this regard, in **J.Ramkumar** (supra) this Court held thus,- ## '32. In **Venugopalan v. Raphael [1974 KLT 640]** the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the landlord filed Rent Control Petition under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act claiming eviction of the petition schedule building on the ground of arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court passed an order directing the tenant to pay admitted arrears of rent on or before the 20.09.1971. In the said order it was made clear that, on default of deposit within the specified period, an order for possession under Section 12(3) of the Act, will be passed. The order under Section 12(1) and (2) was not complied with, despite the fact that time for payment was extended. Therefore, the Rent Control Court passed an order for possession under Section 12(3) of the Act, which was dated 25.10.1971. Within thirty days of the said order, the tenant filed 25 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 I.A.No.4143 of 1971 to receive what was claimed to be the admitted arrears; and I.A.No.4142 of 1971 to set aside the order for possession passed under Section 12(3) of the Act on 25.10.1971. The Rent Control Court dismissed I.A.No.4142 of 1971 holding that an order under Section 12(3) cannot be set aside or vacated on the mere ground that the admitted arrears of rent had been deposited subsequent to the order. It declined to receive the arrears of rent tendered along with the I.A.No.4143 of 1971, and accordingly dismissed the same. The appeals preferred by the tenant under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act against those orders were dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. On further revision, the revisional court, namely the District Court, Trichur, allowed the revision and set aside the orders of the Rent Control Court and of the Appellate Authority and remanded I.A.Nos. 4142 of 1971 and 4143 of 1971 back to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal directing that the time for making deposit of the arrears of rent, will be extended by the Rent Control Court. Feeling aggrieved landlord preferred revision petition before this Court. 33. In **Venugopalan** the Division Bench noticed that, 26 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act a tenant, against whom a decree for eviction has been passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground that rent had been kept in arrears, is allowed relief against the forfeiture of tenancy incurred by non-payment of rent, by depositing the arrears of rent decreed, within a certain period. In **Kurien v. Saramma Chacko [1964 KLT 1]** it was held that the power under Section 11(2)(c) can be exercised by the Appellate Authority and also by the Revisional Authority. Section 12 of the Act provides for a totally different contingency. The deposit of the admitted arrears enjoined by Section 12, is a condition precedent to the tenant entering on his defence and contesting the application for eviction, or an appeal filed therefrom. The scope and purpose of the deposit of arrears of rent enjoined by Section 12 is fundamentally different from the scope and the purpose of the deposit envisaged by Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. In **K.P. Mohammed v. Madhavi Amma [1963 KLT 688]** the Division Bench held that, Section 11 and Section 12 of the Act are not dependent on each other. They provide for different contingencies though the consequence of the non compliance of the mandates of either Section is eviction. 27 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 An order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) of the Act is not amenable to correction under Section 11(2) (c), which relates to orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) only. In T **.B. Mohanan v. Kanakaraja Pillai [1970 KLT 1024]** a learned Judge of this Court held that an order passed under Section 12 of the Act, cannot be reopened or vacated by tendering the rent subsequent to the passing of the said order. In **Venugopalan** , the Division Bench held that, even assuming that for purpose of execution an order under Section 12(3) of the Act can be equated with and treated as the same, as one under Section 11 of the Act, the consequence enjoined by an order under Section 12(3) for failure to deposit the admitted arrears in time can not be vacated or obliterated by payment at any ' subsequent stages or periods. 10. In the light of the law laid down in **J.Ramkumar** (supra) the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since he had deposited the arrears of rent after passing the order of eviction under Section 12(3) of the Act. In view of what is stated above, we hold that the Revision Petition does not have 28 R.C.Rev.No. 182 of 2021 any merit and is liable only to be dismissed. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr