Judgment :- 1. The question involved here is one of interpretation of S.12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965. The material portion of that section reads: "12. Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under S.11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that section, or to prefer an appeal under S.18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application, unless be 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 upto 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. (2) xxxxxxx (3) 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." Under sub-section (3) the court is empowered to stop all further proceedings and order eviction if the tenant defaults to pay or deposit the rent mentioned in sub-section (1). But the question is what is the rent that has to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1)? It is all admitted arrears of rent and rent which may subsequently become due until the termination of the proceedings. The question particularly in controversy here is what exactly does the expression "rent which may subsequently become due" mean? It is future rent that is provided for payment or deposit there. Does it take in future rent irrespective of the question whether it is due or not or payable or not. That is to say: Does it mean that it takes in only future rent which on the tenant's own admission is due from him or payable by him. It is future rent that is provided for payment or deposit there. Does it take in future rent irrespective of the question whether it is due or not or payable or not. That is to say: Does it mean that it takes in only future rent which on the tenant's own admission is due from him or payable by him. When, according to the tenant, revision petitioner here, against whom the landlords, respondents here, applied under S.11 for eviction the answer should be in the affirmative, according to the latter it should be otherwise. 2. Now to the facts of the case. The contract rent for the building was Rs. 30 per month. In the objection filed by the tenant she said that as per subsequent contract between the parties she had effected improvements worth Rs. 2,760 on the building and the property where it is situate and that future rent would, become due and payable only on the liquidation of that debt. The allegation in the petition filed under S.11 of the Act is that Rs. 1,110 is due by way of arrears of rent. In the objection what is stated is that besides wiping off the rent which has so far accrued, there is still a balance of Rs. 1,785 standing to the credit of the tenant and that is sufficient to satisfy future rent for a long time to come. When such is the state of the pleadings, would the court be justified in ordering eviction under S.12 (3) of the Act? And that exactly is what the lower courts have now, done. 3. The provisions of S.12 are intended for the benefit of the landlord. If on the tenant's own admission rent is due from him there is no justification for the tenant withholding payment of it to the landlord until the termination of the proceedings. Therefore it is provided by S.12 that he should pay or deposit it and that if he does not do it all future proceedings have to be stopped and eviction has to be ordered. But if, according to the tenant, nothing is really due from him or payable by him until the question of his liability is decided should he be ordered to pay the rent? But if, according to the tenant, nothing is really due from him or payable by him until the question of his liability is decided should he be ordered to pay the rent? According to the general law, a tenant is entitled to be in possession of the building until the last pie due to him as value of improvements is paid. In the present case there is the contract between the parties also It looks unjust in such circumstances to order the tenant to make the payment. even before decision on the question of her liability. But if the language of the section is such that that has to be done irrespective of her contentions regarding her liability to pay it certainly that has to be given effect to. 4. Let us now look at the wording of the section. With regard to arrears of rent there is the express qualification in S.12 (1) that it should be "admitted". The word "admitted" does not appear as a qualification for future rent in the section. But it does not appear to be the object of the section to penalise the tenant more than to the extent his admissions go. The legislature should not be fixed with the intention to place on the tenant an additional burden to pay future rent even if it is not due from him. The use of the expression "may" before the expression "subsequently become due" in respect of future rent is not without significance. It shows that future rent may not also become due in certain cases. The words "accrue", "due" and "payable" have different signification. Rent may accrue, become due and become payable at a given moment. It may not also. In the case of monthly tenancies rent for a month would accrue at the end of the month. If money is due from the landlord to the tenant and there is provision in the contract between them that the moment accrues it would automatically get extinguished from the amount due to the tenant it would never become due until that amount is wiped off. Even after rent becomes due it may not sometimes become payable. If money is due from the landlord to the tenant and there is provision in the contract between them that the moment accrues it would automatically get extinguished from the amount due to the tenant it would never become due until that amount is wiped off. Even after rent becomes due it may not sometimes become payable. Suppose at the commencement of the tenancy there was a a contract between the parties that for the first year the tenant need pay rent only at the end of the year rent for the first twelve months would accrue and become due at the end of each of those months but it would become payable only at the end of the year. There is thus clear distinction between the words "accure", "due" and "payable" and as regards future rent the provision in the section is that it need be paid or deposited only if it is due. 5. In the present case there is no admission about the liability for arrears of rent. As regards future rent there is the contention that it would become due and payable only on extinguishment of the debt regarding value of improvements. 6. It is true that during the pendency of the proceeding before the lower court on one occasion the tenant offered to pay Rs. 200 to the landlord and did not pay it. But that does not mean that by such offer he admitted his liability to pay future rent to any extent. 7. Counsel for the landlords requested that if, after taking evidence, the court found that the contention of the tenant regarding the agreement was not true liberty may be given to them to move the court for proceeding under S.12 again. Nothing said herein would affect such right, if any, they have. 8. In the result the decisions of the lower courts are set aside, the revision petition is allowed and the Rent Control Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the petition filed under S.11 of the Act. There is no order as to costs.