James, J.

Petitioner in I.A.No.1832/1993, who is the respondent/landlord in R.C.A.2/1993 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (1st Addl. District Judge), Palakkad, is the revision petitioner. The tenant filed the appeal, R.C.A.2/1993, challenging the dismissal of the petition, I.A.2600/1992, filed by him praying to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. As the tenant had not deposited the admitted arrears of rent, amounting to Rs.32,450/-, the landlord prayed to stop the appeal proceedings and to make an order of eviction against the tenant, under sec. 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (in short "˜the Act"). The dismissal of the same is challenged in this revision.

2. The brief facts of the case, required for the disposal of this revision, are that the landlord filed R.C.P.8/1986 before the Rent Control Court, Palakkad for evicting the tenant under Sec.11(2) and 11(4) (V) of the Act. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction after setting the tenant ex parte. I.A. 2600/1992 was filed under Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Rules, (in short 'the rules') to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. The Rent Controller dismissed the same. R.C.A. 2/1993 was filed by the tenant, challenging the said dismissal. In that appeal the landlord filed I.A. 1832 of 1993 for a direction under Sec. 12(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority held that the tenant having filed the I.A. before the Rent Controller under Rule 13(3) of the Rules and not under Sec.11 of the Act, the Court cannot give a direction to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent, and therefore, the petition is unsustainable.

3. The question for consideration is whether a direction under Sec. 12(3) of the Act could be given by the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority during the pendency of proceedings arising under Rule 13(3) of the Rules.

4. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord argued that though the R.C.P. was filed in 1986, because of the protractive tactics of the tenant, the court could not take a final decision so far. It is contended that the petition filed by the tenant to set aside the Ex Parte order passed against him was dismissed. It is urged that the arrears of rent amounts to Rs.32,450/- and same is not deposited so far. It is, therefore, contended that the refusal of the appellate authority to direct the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent, and the dismissal of the petition filed by the landlord under Sec. 12(3) of the Act is against law.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant resisted the above arguments and submitted that the petition for setting aside an ex parte order could only be filed under Rule13(3) of the Rules. The same being not a proceeding under Sec.11 of the Act, the landlord cannot file an application under Sec.12(3) of the Act, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. The question whether the tenant is entitled to contest the proceedings before the Appellate Authority, unless he pays all admitted arrears of rent, came up for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in Mary Beena John v. Addl. District Court (1996 (2) KLT 955). That was a case where the landlords were successful in getting order of eviction against the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent and sub-lease. The tenant challenged it before of rent and sub-lease. The tenant challenged it before the Appellate Authority. The landlords filed I.A. under Sec.12(3) of the act, praying for a direction to pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent by the tenant. The I.A. was allowed by passing an order against the tenant, who failed to deposit the rent arrears. Therefore, eviction order was passed against the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant under Sec.12(3) of the Act. That was challenged in revision. The revisional court interfered with the judgment of the Appellate Authority by passing an order holding that the tenant cannot be