The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant must be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause for non-payment of arrears of rent before an order of eviction is passed under S.12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

C.S. Rajan, J.

The tenant who was a defaulter in payment of arrears of rent and who faced an order of eviction on account of the above default is the Revision Petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. The respondents who are landlords filed a petition for eviction under Ss.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the landlords, the tenant was not paying the rent from 1.1.1996 onwards. Pending the trial of the petition the landlords filed LA. 455 of 1998 on 15.1.1998 under S.12 of the Act praying for a direction to the tenant to pay arrears from 1.1.1996 at the rate of Rs. 7,200/- per month till date and on failure, to stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession on failure of the deposit of arrears of rent. The Revision Petitioner filed objections to the above petition contending that the petition was not maintainable and that the rent was highly excessive and he was not legally bound to pay the same. The Rent Control Court after hearing the parties allowed the above petition as per order dated 13.7.1998 directing the Revision Petitioner to deposit the admitted arrears within four weeks from the date of the order. Thus, the Revision Petitioner had to deposit the amount on or before 11.8.1998. The Revision Petitioner did not deposit the above amount. But filed I.A. 5114 of 1998 on 13.8.1998 requesting for enlargement of time to deposit the amount. The Rent Control Court found that the admitted arrears of rent had not been deposited in compliance with the order. Therefore, as per order dated 14.8.1998 an order of eviction was passed. I.A. 5114 of 1998 was dismissed on the ground that the above petition was received after the order of eviction was passed. Against the above order of the Rent Control Court the petitioner filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by these two orders the Revision Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The main ground which has been pressed by Sri. M.S. Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that a tenant would have to be given an opportunity to show cause as to why penal consequence contemplated by sub-s.(3) of S.12 of the Act should not be imposed even after an order under sub-s.(2) of S.12 is passed. In order to drive home the above point the learned counsel cited a number of decisions of this Court. The sheet anchor of the petitioner is the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Xavier v. Leonard Pappali (1975 KLT 542). In the above case this Court held as follows:

"When a date has been fixed by a Court for deposit of arrears of rent in terms of S.12(2) of the Act, until the expiry of such date the tenant cannot be said to be in default. If he is not in default he cannot be expected to show sufficient cause to the contrary since that would arise only when he is in default and that would only be on the expiry of the period fixed for making the deposit by an order under S.12(2) of the Act. The tenant is to show sufficient cause not when an order for eviction under S.12(3) is passed but prior to that order. Therefore the opportunity is to be given after the expiry of the time fixed for deposit of the arrears of rent but before the passing of the order under S.12(3). There must be a reasonable interval sufficient for the tenant to show cause to the contrary. What would be reasonable opportunity is not possible of any precise definition and must be left to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. It goes without saying that on the language of S.12(3) we have to read a duty on the part of the Rent Control Court which passes an order under S.12 (3) f or eviction to consider whether there is sufficient cause to the contrary. If the Court on considering this question finds that the tenant has not chosen