The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the tenant to deposit admitted arrears of rent during eviction proceedings, as well as the interpretation and application of S.8(2) and S.12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

1. While proceedings in a Rent Control Court for eviction of a tenant were pending, the landlord informed the court that the tenant has not deposited the admitted arrears of rent and hence requested the court to stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The tenant, in answer thereto, contended that he is not liable to pay the contract rent in view of S.8(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short'the Act'). He further contended that if rent is calculated in accordance with S.8(2) of the Act, the amount already deposited by him will be much more than sufficient to cover his legal obligation under S.12(1) of the Act. The Rent Control Court repelled his contention and directed him to deposit the arrears as calculated on the basis of contract rent. But the appellate authority as well as revisional authority upheld the contention of the tenant. The orders of the aforesaid two authorities are now being challenged in this Original Petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution.

2. In the application filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on two specified grounds it was averred that the monthly rent of the building is Rs.630/- and that the tenant defaulted the rent from 17-9-1984 onwards. The tenant put forward a case in his counter that the rent was originally fixed at Rs.30/-per month which was raised subsequently to Rs.630/- per month with his consent, that the rent arrears from 17-9-1984 till 16-1-1985 were sent by Money Order which the landlord had refused to accept. He further stated that he is willing to clear the arrears of rent. Thus it can be gathered from the said counter that the tenant has admitted the rate of rent as well as the fact that the rent was in arrears from 17-9-1984 onwards. On 12-9-1985 the tenant deposited a sum of Rs.6,300/- describing it as rent arrears for ten months and on 21-3-1986 he deposited Rs. 1,260/- being the rent arrears for two months. As he committed default in depositing the rent for the subsequent months, the landlord filed the application for orders under S.12(3) of the Act. It was then that the tenant raised his contention that his liability is only to deposit the rent as calculated as per S.8(2) of the Act. The said contention was found favour with the appellate and revisional authorities.

3. S.12(1) of the Act says that no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made shall be entitled to contest the application unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Rent Control Court "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". Sub-section (2) provides the manner in which the payment or deposit has to be made and sub-section (3) relates to the consequences of tenant's failure to pay, whereas sub-section (4) contains the mode of giving notice of deposit and the conditions in which the deposit can be withdrawn by the landlord.

4. The provisions embodied in S.12 are intended to minimise the consequences of protraction of proceedings. If tenants have no such compulsion to pay the rent arrears during pendency of the proceedings, the tenants would be encouraged to adopt procrastinative tactics to protract the proceedings at the cost of the opposite party. So the legislation has provided S.12(1) as a precautionary device. Hence deposit of admitted arrears of rent is intended to confer the right or entitlement to the tenant to contest the landlord's application. But, when there is dispute between the landlord and tenant over the rate or the quantum of arrears of rent it is inequitable to compel the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord. This could be the raison d'etre f