ORDER : 1. The question that arises in this revision petition is whether the Rent Control Court was justified in passing an order under Section 12 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) to stop the proceedings consequent upon non-payment of the rent which falls due subsequently after clearing the defaulted arrears of rent by the tenant, even in the absence of such a direction in the order passed under Section 12 (1) of the Act. 2. As is evident from the order passed by the Rent Control Court, Cherthala under Section 12 (1) of the Act, the Rent Control Court only directed the tenant to pay arrears of rent as on the date of passing of that order within 30 days. The tenant cleared the entire arrears as on the date of passing of the order. However, he failed to pay the subsequent rent due after clearing the arrears. There was omission in the order passed by the RCC to direct the tenant to continue to pay the monthly rent that falls due till he vacates the petition schedule building. No doubt, statutorily, the tenant is liable to pay the rent that subsequently falls due, pending the proceedings. 3. The question is whether the default committed by the tenant in not honouring the statutory obligation to continue to pay monthly rent would result in stoppage of the proceedings under Section 12 (3) of the Act, without there being a specific order under Section 12 (1) of the Act. The law is clear and precise. It is only when a tenant commits default to pay the rent that subsequently falls due, by not honouring the order of the court, it would result in passing a final order under Section 12 (3) of the Act. That exactly was done in this matter by the appellate authority by reversing the order of the Rent Control Court stopping the proceedings consequent upon the non-payment of rent which falls due subsequently. 4. We are of the view that this is a correct approach. That exactly was done in this matter by the appellate authority by reversing the order of the Rent Control Court stopping the proceedings consequent upon the non-payment of rent which falls due subsequently. 4. We are of the view that this is a correct approach. Invariably, when the court passes an order of eviction in an application filed under Section 12 (1) of the Act, the court is bound to pass an order to the effect that the rent that subsequently become due is also to be paid until the termination of the proceedings, so as to create an obligation on the tenant to pay the rent and if the tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent, the court can pass an order under Section 12 (3) of the Act, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, to stop all the proceedings and also to put the landlord in possession of the building. That means, when the tenant fails to honour the direction of the court to continue to pay the monthly rent, there would be a stoppage of proceedings. However, in the absence of such a direction to continue to pay the monthly rent, no stoppage of the proceedings would arise. This is the intention of the lawmakers behind Section 12 (3) of the Act. The stoppage of proceedings essentially depends upon the directions issued by the court and is not based on the statutory obligations cast on the tenant to pay the rent. 5. The object of the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Act is to deny the defaulting tenant the right to contest an application for eviction before the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, which would result in the stoppage of the proceedings. Section 12 (3) of the Act mandates that if the tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent, all further proceedings should be halted and an order can be issued directing the tenant to return the building to the landlord's possession, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary. The consequence contemplated is to stop all further proceedings in the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jain Abraham v. Best Buy T.V. and Home Appliances , 2009 (1) KLT 477 . The consequence contemplated is to stop all further proceedings in the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jain Abraham v. Best Buy T.V. and Home Appliances , 2009 (1) KLT 477 . That is a case where the landlord approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when there was a considerable delay in disposing of the application under Section 12 (3) of the Act and certain observation has been made to the effect that the tenant is statutorily obliged to pay the rent which falls due subsequently, even after the arrears were cleared. We find that, ultimately, the court, in the writ petition filed seeking speedy disposal of the Rent Control Petition, directed the tenant to pay the subsequent rent also. 7. In the first instance, in a petition filed under Section 12 (1) of the Act, the court has to order the tenant to pay the arrears of rent within a minimum period of four weeks and also to continue to pay the monthly rent. Consequent to the failure to comply with the same, the court can pass an order under Section 12 (3) of the Act. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the appellate authority and dismiss this revision petition. However, taking note of the fact that many years have elapsed, we direct the Rent Control Court to dispose of this matter within two months from today.