Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the landlord-petitioner in proceedings for eviction pending before the Rent Controller. Trichur. The order of the Revisional Authority setting aside the order u/S. 12 (3) confirmed in appeal is under attack in this revision. 2. The District Judge in setting aside the order has directed the Rent Control Court to adjudicate afresh on the applicability of S.12(3) after giving a proper opportunity to the revision petitioner to show cause or to deposit the arrears that the Rent Controller finds as due at that time. with the reservation that if no deposit is made or if no proper cause is shown within the time to be given by the Rent Control Court. the order shall revive. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner this order of the Revisional Authority is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction because the order passed by the Rent Controller u/S. 12 (3) of the Rent Control Act and upheld by the Appellate Authority is one unassailable under law and on the facts of the case. It is pointed out that the two requirements for passing an order under that section. viz.. the default on the part of the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears and the failure to show cause against an order of eviction under the sub-section are fully satisfied. that the Appellate Authority has in a considered order confirmed the action of the Rent Controller and there is no scope for any interference in revision by the District Judge. 4. In order to appreciate these arguments it is necessary to set out few facts. The original petition for eviction was filed u/S. 11 of the Act alleging inter alia that the rent at the rate of Rs.110/-per mensem was kept in arrears by the tenant-respondent since 7-4-1979. The counter-statement was filed by the tenant on 4-3-1980 admitting the arrears from 7-4-1980 and and undertaking to deposit the same. The Rent Control Court by an order dated 4-3-1980 directed the tenant to pay the admitted arrears if any on 5-4-1980. Since no deposit was made within that time. the Rent Controller directed the respondent to show cause. if any. why S.12 (3) of the Act shall not be invoked. and posted the case to 11-4-1980. The tenant-respondent on 11-4-1980 deposited an amount of Rs. Since no deposit was made within that time. the Rent Controller directed the respondent to show cause. if any. why S.12 (3) of the Act shall not be invoked. and posted the case to 11-4-1980. The tenant-respondent on 11-4-1980 deposited an amount of Rs. 990/- and submitted that due to financial stringency he could not make the deposit in time. The Rent Controller on the same date made an order u/sub-s. (3) of S.12 suspending the proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession stating that the deposit did not cover the admitted arrears and the reasons stated for non-payment was not satisfactory. The Appellate Authority in affirming the order on 11-4-1980 stated that an amount of Rs.1.210/-was payable by the tenant as arrears of rent. that financial stress is not a sufficient reason to enable the court to enlarge the time for payment of admitted arrears. The learned District Judge while setting aside these orders has pointed out that a sum of Rs.330/- had been paid by the tenant as premium at the time of the entrustment. that Rs.220/- was appropriated towards the arrears due and if the balance of Rs.110/-is also added to the payment made on 11-4-1980. there will be no arrears. The learned District Judge noticed that substantial portion of the rent has been paid and there is sufficient explanation for not depositing the balance and therefore interference with the order was called for. The learned judge however observed that no proper cause was shown by the tenant though be had said earlier that there is sufficient explanation for not depositing the balance. 5. Under S.12 of the Act. the tenant shall be entitled to contest the application only if he pays to the landlord or deposits in court all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant up to the date of payment or deposit. and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due until the termination of the proceedings. The deposit is to be made within such time as the court may fix and in such manner as prescribed. The court in fixing the time for deposit has to allow not less than four weeks from the date of the order for the deposit of arrears of rent and not less than two weeks from the date on which the subsequent rent accrues due. 6. The court in fixing the time for deposit has to allow not less than four weeks from the date of the order for the deposit of arrears of rent and not less than two weeks from the date on which the subsequent rent accrues due. 6. Sub-section (3) of S.12 then provides 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." 7. The deposit contemplated u/S. 12 (1) is of the rent admitted by the tenant. The basis for determining what is the admitted rent is the objection filed by the tenant. The tenant has thus obligation to deposit only the arrears of rent which according to him is legally recoverable by the landlord. It the tenant claims that the premium paid is adjustable towards the rent that accrues due and only the balance is recoverable from him. he is bound to deposit only such balance because what is admitted as arrears is only that amount. Even if the landlord is entitled to retain the advance paid until eviction and the advance is not liable to be adjusted towards the arrears until the termination of the proceedings. the tenant is not bound to deposit the disputed amount which cannot be treated as admitted arrears. 8. In Celine Sourunny v. Mary Paul Abrao (1979 K.L.T. 533) this Court held: "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. The correct procedure 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 deposit the amount specified. The correct procedure 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 deposit 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". 9. In the earlier decision in Xavier v. Leonard Pappali (1975 K.L.T. 542) this Court said thus: "When S.12(3) is sought to be applied a tenant is entitled to claim that he must have the benefit of the safeguards secured to him under the very provision namely. that he should be given an opportunity to show sufficient cause to the contrary. The opportunity must be reasonable and real. The requirement. the circumstances would amply bear out. is not an empty formality to be observed by the Court. If the tenant is not given such an opportunity to show sufficient cause to the contrary an order passed under S.12(3) would be unsustainable." 10. In Ammachi v. Pathumma Umma (1972 K.L.T. 401) the scope of application of S.12 was considered and it was held: "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.11 11. The section no doubt curtails the right of the tenant to contest the proceedings and has therefore to be strictly applied. In a case where the court does not stipulate the amount that has to be paid or deposited and grants the tenant time to make the deposit. the sufficiency of the amount deposited has to be first decided and if there is any deficit. the tenant has to be called upon to make good the shortfall before invoking the power under sub-section (3) of S.12 of the Act. In the absence of any such adjudication. it cannot be said that reasonable and real opportunity was given to the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears or to show cause against the default. the tenant has to be called upon to make good the shortfall before invoking the power under sub-section (3) of S.12 of the Act. In the absence of any such adjudication. it cannot be said that reasonable and real opportunity was given to the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears or to show cause against the default. The facts adverted to clearly show that the Rent Control Court had not required the tenant to deposit any specific amount and even after the deposit of Rs. 990/-the tenant was not called upon to make any further deposit on the basis that he had admitted to pay more. When the tenant had a specific case that an amount of Rs. 110/- outstanding with the landlord was liable to be adjusted towards the rent for ten months which was payable after 7-4-1979 up to 4-3-1980 the date of the order. the deposit of Rs. 990/- on 11-4-1979 could not have been rejected as insufficient without requiring the tenant to make further deposit. The learned District Judge was therefore right in directing further enquiry after setting aside the orders in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. In cannot be said that exercise of the power u/S.20 was erroneous or that any miscarriage of justice has resulted from the order. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondent.