N.K. Sodhi, C.J.

This Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "the Act") against the order dated January 28,2003 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority directing him to put the landlord in possession of the demised premises under S.12(3) of the Act.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition which lie in a narrow compass may first be noticed.

3. The landlord-respondent filed a petition under Ss.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground that he (landlord) bona fide needs the building for his own use and occupation. It is alleged that the landlord is an Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner and bona fide requires the tenanted premises for stocking, preparing the storing medicines as he intends to start his consultancy in the adjoining room. The petition was contested by the petitioner. He denied the bona fide need of the landlord and also claimed that the rent had been paid annually and that it was in arrears only because of the refusal of the landlord to receive the same. It was also pleaded that no alternative premises were available in the locality and that the tenant was mainly dependent for his livelihood on the income derived from the business carried on in the tenanted premises.

4. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties the Rent Controller found that the need of the landlord was bona fide and that the tenant was not entitled to the benefit of the provisos to S.11(3) of the Act. The ejectment petition was allowed under S.11 (3) of the Act and the tenant was ordered to be evicted. Since the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent the ground for eviction under S.11 (2)(b) of the Act was no longer available to the landlord. Feeling aggrieved by the order of ejectment the tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery.

5. While the appeal was pending the landlord-respondent filed an application under S.12 of the Act for an order directing the petitioner to put the landlord in possession of the building as he had failed to deposit the arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the demised premises. This application was allowed by the Appellate Authority and all further proceedings in the appeal were stopped and the petitioner was directed to vacate the demised premises and deliver vacant possession to the landlord-respondent. It is against this order that the present Revision Petition has been filed.

6. The solitary ground on which the impugned order has been assailed before us is that the petitioner was not granted time as stipulated in S.12(2) of the Act to deposit the arrears of rent and that he had not been issued any notice under S.12 (3) to show sufficient cause for not depositing the rent and, therefore, the order directing ejectment of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of S.12 of the Act. At this stage it is necessary to refer to S.12 of the Act which reads as under:

"12. Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction.

(1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under S.11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court underthat section, 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 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 or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be.

(2) The deposit under sub-s. (1) shall be made within suc