Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are the tenants in respect of a building belonging to the respondents. R.C. (OP.) 97 of 1976 was filed by the respondents for eviction of the revision petitioners on the ground of arrears of rent and also for re-construction. The respondents are prepared to give the first option to the petitioners to have the reconstructed building allotted to them with the liability to pay fair rent. The case of the respondents is that the building was let on a monthly rent of Rs. 50 payable on the first day of every English month and that the petitioners failed to pay the arrears of rent due from Ist March 1972. The petitioners in their objections disputed their liability to be evicted. They admitted that the building was taken on rent by their father on 2nd January 1950, fixing a rent of Rs. 50. According to the petitioners, an amount of Rs. 950 was deposited on 13th September 1972 which was more than the actual amount due on that date. Various amounts were subsequently paid and the entire arrears were paid upto 20th August 1973. According to them, from 20th August 1973 till 3rd June 1976, the entire arrears came to Rs. 1500 and the same was paid on 3rd June 1976. The rent from June, 1976 alone was due. The petitioners expressed their preparedness to pay the same. On a motion made by the respondents subsequently, the petitioners were directed to pay the admitted arrears of rent under S.12 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Holding that there was default to pay the admitted rent, the Rent Control Court stopped all further proceedings under S.12 (3) of the Act and the petitioners were directed to put the respondents in possession of the building. The petitioners thereupon challenged the above order before the Appellate authority The Appellate authority dismissed the appeal and gave two months to the petitioners to vacate the building. The above order was confirmed in revision by the Second Additional District Judge, Ernakulam.' The revision petition is preferred against the above order. 2. The petitioners thereupon challenged the above order before the Appellate authority The Appellate authority dismissed the appeal and gave two months to the petitioners to vacate the building. The above order was confirmed in revision by the Second Additional District Judge, Ernakulam.' The revision petition is preferred against the above order. 2. Under S.12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court or to prefer an appeal under S.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 upto the date of payment of 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. Sub-section (3) directs that 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. 3. In the instant case, on 21st August 1976 the Rent Control Court adjourned the case to 21st September 1976 for payment of admitted arrears and to show cause why an order under S.12 (3) should not be passed. On 21st September 1976, the petitioners paid Rs. 300. If the averment in the written statement of the tenants that rent for June alone was due is acted upon, the above amount of Rs. 300 was more than sufficient to cover the arrears till the date of deposit. No order falling under S.12 was passed on 21st September 1976. There was subsequent payments of Rs. 50 each on 21st October 1976,19th November 1976 and 9th February 1977. On 9th February 1977, the landlords (petitioners before the Rent Control Court) were called upon to state, if any amount was still due. No order falling under S.12 was passed on 21st September 1976. There was subsequent payments of Rs. 50 each on 21st October 1976,19th November 1976 and 9th February 1977. On 9th February 1977, the landlords (petitioners before the Rent Control Court) were called upon to state, if any amount was still due. A statement of calculation was accordingly made by them. On 14th June 1977, the tenants were again directed to pay the admitted arrears. The main case was then adjourned for evidence and hearing to 18th June 1977. On 18th June 1977, the tenants again paid Rs. 200. The case was again adjourned. On 12th August 1977 a counter-statement was filed by the tenants disputing the calculation made by the landlords. The parties were heard on 3rd September 1977 and the Rent Control Court passed the order under S.12 (3) on 7th September 1977. 4. There is no doubt that the procedure followed by the Rent Control Court is not the one contemplated under S.12 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The deposit contemplated under S.12 is not of the amount which is found to be due from the tenant after an adjudication of the dispute between the landlord and the tenant as to the actual amount due as rent. The deposit contemplated in S.12(1) is of the rent admitted by the tenant. The basis for deciding what is the admitted rent is the written statement or the objections filed by the tenant to the petition for eviction. While acting under S.12, the Rent Control Court is not expected to enquire into the case of the landlord regarding the arrears. The object of S.12 is not to provide another ground of eviction in addition to those provided in S.11 of the Act. The purpose is to ensure that the tenant does not avail of the pendency of the petition for eviction for evading regular payment of rent which, even according to him, is due to the landlord. It is not unlikely that disputes may crop . up regarding the calculation of the admitted arrears In such cases, it is only proper that the Rent Control Court specifies the amount to be deposited and fixes the time for payment of the amount as contemplated in the proviso to. S.12(2). It is not unlikely that disputes may crop . up regarding the calculation of the admitted arrears In such cases, it is only proper that the Rent Control Court specifies the amount to be deposited and fixes the time for payment of the amount as contemplated in the proviso to. S.12(2). The tenant need be deprived of his possession only if he does not make the deposit within the specified time. What the Rent Control Court has done in this case was to postpone the decision regarding the quantum of the admitted arrears to a date subsequent to the deposit and order delivery of possession on the ground that the deposit fell short of the admitted arrears. Such a procedure would defeat the purpose of the section. The tenant should not be deprived of his possession of the building merely on the ground that his mode of calculation of the admitted arrears was different from that adopted by the Rent Control Court. The correct procedure in my view in case of dispute regarding the quantum of the admitted rent is to resolve the dispute before fixing the time for payment of the arrears under proviso to S.12(2), S.12(3) contemplates that even in cases where the tenant fails to pay or deposits the amount specified, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate authority should refrain from stopping further proceedings if the tenant shows cause to the contrary. In other words, an opportunity should be given to the tenant to show cause why he should not be called upon to put the landlord in possession of the building. The above provisions are not seen followed in the instant case. In the face of the dispute regarding the quantum of "the arrears of rent admitted by the tenants", the Rent Control Court should have specified the amount before calling upon the tenants to make the deposit. What the Rent Control Court did was to order delivery of possession of the building on the ground that an amount of Rs. 1311.44, mentioned in the statement of the landlords' counsel had not been deposited. Time as contemplated in proviso to S.12(2) is also not seen given to the tenants to make the deposit. 5. The order passed by the Rent Control Court presumably under S.12 does not satisfy the requirements of that section and is, therefore, set aside. 1311.44, mentioned in the statement of the landlords' counsel had not been deposited. Time as contemplated in proviso to S.12(2) is also not seen given to the tenants to make the deposit. 5. The order passed by the Rent Control Court presumably under S.12 does not satisfy the requirements of that section and is, therefore, set aside. The Rent Control Court will restore the petition to file, follow the procedure under S.12 and dispose of the petition, according to law. The revision petition is allowed as above. Allowed.