Judgment :- Balanarayana Marar, J. The tenant against whom the authorities below granted an order of eviction on the ground of rent arrears is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need for own occupation. The Rent Control Court disallowed the relief on the ground of bonafide need but directed the tenant to surrender possession on the ground of arrears of rent. Both parties filed appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam. By a common judgment rendered on 27-8-1993 both the appeals were dismissed. The tenant has come up in revision. 2. The main grievance of revision petitioner is that the arrears of rent having been discharged during the pendency of the appeal the relief under S.11(2) (b) of the Act does not survive and the Appellate Authority has committed an illegality in directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. It is contended that the Appellate Authority should have determined the arrears of rent due to the landlord and ascertained whether the tenant was a defaulter after taking note of the amounts paid during the pendency of the proceeding. If that is done, the tenant cannot be said to be a defaulter, according to counsel, since the entire arrears of rent including interest had been paid by the tenant. We cannot agree with this contention. S.11(2)(b) of the Rent Control Act does not enjoin a duty either on the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority to determine the arrears of rent due at the time of the order of the Rent Control Court or the judgment in appeal. 3. We cannot agree with this contention. S.11(2)(b) of the Rent Control Act does not enjoin a duty either on the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority to determine the arrears of rent due at the time of the order of the Rent Control Court or the judgment in appeal. 3. To understand the legal position it is only proper to refer to S.11(2)(b) of the Act which reads; "If the Rent Control Court, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which (lie rent is payable, it shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, and if it is not satisfied it shall make an order rejecting the application thereof by him". 4. It is therefore mandatory on the part of the Rent Control Court to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if it is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy or by the last day of the month next following for which the rent is payable in case there is no such agreement. The condition precedent to an application for eviction by the landlord on this ground is the issue of a notice intimating the default. Landlord gets cause of action only if the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent together with interest at 6% per annum and the postal charges incurred in sending the notice within 15 days of the receipt of notice or of the refusal thereof. Landlord gets cause of action only if the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent together with interest at 6% per annum and the postal charges incurred in sending the notice within 15 days of the receipt of notice or of the refusal thereof. On a reading of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of S.11 along with the proviso thereto the position is therefore clear that the Rent Control Court before directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building has to look into only the following aspects: (i) Whether the landlord has sent a notice intimating the default, (ii) Whether the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent with interest and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within 15 days of the receipt of notice or the refusal thereof. A reasonable opportunity has to be given to the tenant to show cause against the application. If after giving such opportunity to the tenant the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him within the period specified in the proviso the Rent Control Court has no option but to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. An enquiry as to the arrears of rent which accrue due after the issue of notice or. the arrears payable at the time when the petition came up for enquiry is not contemplated under the Act. The enquiry has to be limited to the question of default at the time of issue of notice and non-payment or non-tender of the same within 15 days of the receipt of notice of the refusal thereof. On such default application under sub-section (2) of S.11 can be maintained and on the Rent Control Court being satisfied of the default an order for eviction of the tenant has to follow. 5. Provision has been made in S.11(2)(c) of the Act to enable the tenant to get the order of eviction vacated by making deposit of the arrears of rent with interest and costs of the proceedings within a period of one month from the date of the order or such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its discretion allow. The question of the actual arrears of rent due to the landlord and adjustment of the amounts paid since the commencement of the proceeding are to be done in a petition presented under that sub-clause. The scheme of the Act appears to be that once the tenant is found to be a defaulter and has failed to pay the rent due within the period prescribed an order of eviction, has to be passed against him giving him an opportunity to get it vacated by making the requisite deposit within the period of one month or such further time allowed by the court. The contention that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority should not have granted a order of eviction on the ground of rent arrears when once the tenant has discharged the arrears is therefore unsustainable. The question of discharge and the liability to pay the arrears of rent if any are matters to be considered at the time of enquiry in a petition under clause (c) of S.11(2) of the Act. An order of eviction on the ground of rent arrears is not usually passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in case it is satisfied that the arrears of rent had been discharged. That is only for the sake of expediency. No purpose will be served by directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and driving the tenant to a petition to get that order vacated by moving the court under clause (c) of S.11(2) of the Act. But that does not mean that the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority has a duty to determine the arrears of rent and ascertain whether there was anything due. If the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority has failed to determine such arrears and has passed an order under S.11(2)(b) finding the tenant to be a defaulter such an order cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable. That order is fully justified and is in accordance with the provisions contained in S.11(2) of the Act, The impugned orders of the authorities below are not therefore illegal or unreasonable requiring interference in revision. The remedy of revision petitioner is to get the order vacated under S.11(2)(c) of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons the revision is dismissed.