Judgment :- 1. While proceedings in a Rent Control Court for eviction of a tenant were pending, the landlord informed the court that the tenant has not deposited the admitted arrears of rent and hence requested the court to stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The tenant, in answer thereto, contended that he is not liable to pay the contract rent in view of S.8(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short'the Act'). He further contended that if rent is calculated in accordance with S.8(2) of the Act, the amount already deposited by him will be much more than sufficient to cover his legal obligation under S.12(1) of the Act. The Rent Control Court repelled his contention and directed him to deposit the arrears as calculated on the basis of contract rent. But the appellate authority as well as revisional authority upheld the contention of the tenant. The orders of the aforesaid two authorities are now being challenged in this Original Petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution. 2. In the application filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on two specified grounds it was averred that the monthly rent of the building is Rs.630/- and that the tenant defaulted the rent from 17-9-1984 onwards. The tenant put forward a case in his counter that the rent was originally fixed at Rs.30/-per month which was raised subsequently to Rs.630/- per month with his consent, that the rent arrears from 17-9-1984 till 16-1-1985 were sent by Money Order which the landlord had refused to accept. He further stated that he is willing to clear the arrears of rent. Thus it can be gathered from the said counter that the tenant has admitted the rate of rent as well as the fact that the rent was in arrears from 17-9-1984 onwards. On 12-9-1985 the tenant deposited a sum of Rs.6,300/- describing it as rent arrears for ten months and on 21-3-1986 he deposited Rs. 1,260/- being the rent arrears for two months. As he committed default in depositing the rent for the subsequent months, the landlord filed the application for orders under S.12(3) of the Act. On 12-9-1985 the tenant deposited a sum of Rs.6,300/- describing it as rent arrears for ten months and on 21-3-1986 he deposited Rs. 1,260/- being the rent arrears for two months. As he committed default in depositing the rent for the subsequent months, the landlord filed the application for orders under S.12(3) of the Act. It was then that the tenant raised his contention that his liability is only to deposit the rent as calculated as per S.8(2) of the Act. The said contention was found favour with the appellate and revisional authorities. 3. S.12(1) of the Act says that no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made shall be entitled to contest the application unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits 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 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". Sub-section (2) provides the manner in which the payment or deposit has to be made and sub-section (3) relates to the consequences of tenant's failure to pay, whereas sub-section (4) contains the mode of giving notice of deposit and the conditions in which the deposit can be withdrawn by the landlord. 4. The provisions embodied in S.12 are intended to minimise the consequences of protraction of proceedings. If tenants have no such compulsion to pay the rent arrears during pendency of the proceedings, the tenants would be encouraged to adopt procrastinative tactics to protract the proceedings at the cost of the opposite party. So the legislation has provided S.12(1) as a precautionary device. Hence deposit of admitted arrears of rent is intended to confer the right or entitlement to the tenant to contest the landlord's application. But, when there is dispute between the landlord and tenant over the rate or the quantum of arrears of rent it is inequitable to compel the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord. This could be the raison d'etre for compelling the tenant to deposit the arrears admitted by him. 5. But, when there is dispute between the landlord and tenant over the rate or the quantum of arrears of rent it is inequitable to compel the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord. This could be the raison d'etre for compelling the tenant to deposit the arrears admitted by him. 5. Corresponding sections in other Rent Control statutes in force in other States give an idea of how similar legislations have made provisions for such situations. The Andhra Pradesh (Lease and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as well as the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, contain provisions to the effect that no tenant shall be entitled to contest the application unless he deposits all arrears of rent due and the court has to determine summarily the rent to be so deposited when there is any dispute as to the amount. S.15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and S.13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 contain provisions for fixing interim rent or provisional rent of the building during the pendency of the proceedings and the tenant has the obligation to deposit such provisional rent failing which his defence is liable to be struck off. It must be noticed that there is no provision in the Kerala Act either to fix the rent summarily or to fix it provisionally. Such fixation may involve time consuming process. As per S.13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and S.17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the tenant has the liability to deposit the arrears of rent admitted by him. Obviously the legislature, while making the Kerala Act, has chosen to prefer the mode used in the Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal Acts, in order to obviate the time consuming exercise to fix any interim or provisional rent at the interlocutory stage. No special exercise is involved to ascertain the rent admitted by the tenant to be due. The practical method to ascertain the admitted arrears of rent is to read the counter or objections filed by the tenant. (Vide Mrs.Celine Sourunny v. Mary Paul Abro -1979 K.L.T. 533; and Pathumma Beevi v. Lonappan -1985 K.L.T. 705). If the tenant makes a clear admission about the rate of rent or quantum of arrears of rent, there is no difficulty. (Vide Mrs.Celine Sourunny v. Mary Paul Abro -1979 K.L.T. 533; and Pathumma Beevi v. Lonappan -1985 K.L.T. 705). If the tenant makes a clear admission about the rate of rent or quantum of arrears of rent, there is no difficulty. But when he does not expressly admit the same, it is open to the court to find it out from implied admissions. If a tenant, instead of expressly admitting either the rate of rent or quantum of arrears of rent as averred in the application, avoids saying anything about it in his counter, the Rent Control Court would be justified in treating such omission as amounting to admission of the fact averred in the application, so far as the rent part is concerned. But court cannot overlook his pleadings and tell him that his legal obligation to deposit is only that much of rent arrears as found or fixed as per S.8(2) of the Act irrespective of his pleadings. If the legislative intention was to create obligation on the tenant to deposit only that much of rent arrears ascertained as per S.8(2) during pendency of proceedings the legislature would have easily mentioned so in S.12(1) of the Act, at least provision would have been made for fixing provisional rent on the basis of S.8(2) of the Act. 6. S.8(1) of the Act deals with the situation where the Rent Control Court has already determined fair rent whereas S.8(2) deals with the position where fair rent has not been determined at all. S.8(2)(a) reads thus: "notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, the rent payable for the building in case it is a building falling under clause (i) or clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.5 shall be, where the property tax or house tax has been fixed by the local authority, the maximum rent that maybe fixed by the Rent Control Court as provided for in sub-section (2) of S.5, or the agreed rent whichever is less, and in cases where no property tax or house tax has been fixed for the building or where it has been fixed not on a rental basis, the agreed rent;" Sub-section (3) says that any stipulation in contravention of the preceding provisions shall be null and void. But an adjudicatory process is needed to fix up the amount of rent envisaged in S.8(2) of the Act. But an adjudicatory process is needed to fix up the amount of rent envisaged in S.8(2) of the Act. For that purpose the court may have to take evidence and decide whether property tax has been fixed by the local authority and if so whether it is above or below the agreed rent, and whether such tax has been fixed on rental basis etc. The spirit of S.12(1) is that no tenant shall have the right to bypass his legal obligation to deposit at least the admitted arrears of rent during the pendency of proceedings. 7. Janaki Amnia, J. has observed in Mrs. Celine Sourunny v. Mary Paul Abro (1979 K.L.T. 533) that "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". What is imposed by S.12(1) is the obligation to deposit arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due, whereas what is envisaged in S.11(2)(c), (if the tenant wants to get the benefit of that clause) is to deposit the actual arrears of rent. In determining the quantum of actual arrears of rent, the Rent Control Court can certainly take aid from. S.8(2) of the Act. At the said stage the court can legitimately exercise adjudicatory process in order to determine the actual rent payable under law. The tenant may not succeed in warding off the order of eviction passed under S.11(2)(a) by depositing the admitted arrears of rent alone because there may be difference between the actual arrears of rent and the "arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due". Benefit of S.11(2)(c) can be availed of by a tenant only by depositing the actual arrears of rent, while for discharging the obligation of the tenant under S.12(1), he need not necessarily deposit the actual arrears of rent. As the legal position is consistent with what the Rent Control Court has held and inconsistent with the view taken by the appellate and revisional authorities, I quash Exts.P4 and P5. The tenant is granted four weeks time to deposit the admitted arrears of rent in terms of what is stated above. Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms. The tenant is granted four weeks time to deposit the admitted arrears of rent in terms of what is stated above. Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.