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

1. The revision petitioner is a tenant of a building situate in the Cochin Corporation area and of which the respondent is the landlord. On the ground that the tenant had left the rent in arrears a petition was moved for his eviction under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Soon after the return of notice on the petition, an objection was filed by the tenant to the application for eviction and that was on 3 - 61968.On 16-71968 to which date the case was adjourned the court passed an order directing deposit of all arrears of rent due from the tenant on or before 19 81968. It was not so deposited and on 20 81968 the court passed an order under S.12 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 stopping all further proceedings and ordering eviction of the tenant. It is that order which was challenged in appeal and subsequently in revision. That was confirmed both by the appellate and revisional authorities. That is under challenge in the Civil Revision Petition. That was referred to by a learned Single Judge of this court to the Division Bench for the reason that the question raised is one of general importance The contention of the revision petitioner is that though there was default in the payment of rent on the specified date, in view of the expression "unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary" occurring in sub-section (3) of S.12 of the Act the tenant was entitled to a further opportunity to show cause for non-compliance with the order.

2. It is apparent that the court which passed the order under S.12 (2) to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 19 81968 passed the order under S.12 (3) by reason of the default in payment of the rent on the due date. The relevant portion of the order of the Rent Controller reads:

"4. When the petition came up for enquiry on 16 71968, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that admitted arrears are due to be paid and since that has not been paid the petition has to be dismissed under S.12 of the Act. Hence the case was adjourned to 19 81968 for the payment of admitted arrears. On 19 81968 the respondent tenant did not pay any admitted arrears and the counsel for the petitioner canvassed for the application of S.12 and an order of eviction.

5. The respondent in his written objection admitted payment of rent till November, 1967. Rent is in arrears from that date. The admitted arrears have not been paid or deposited in court. That debars him from contesting the petition. No sufficient reason shown why it was not deposited.

6. Hence all further proceedings are stopped and the respondent tenant is ordered to put the landlord in possession of the building shown in the margin of the petition. The petitioner is also entitled to get the costs of the proceedings. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 10/2

3. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner before us is that the court, in passing the order of eviction on the failure to deposit the arrears of rent on 19-8-1968, was acting in contravention of the provisions of S.12 (3) of the Act. That is because the court had a duty to furnish a reasonable opportunity to the tenant to show cause to the contrary, and that opportunity had not been provided. It is further said that the order to be passed by the Munsiff under S.12 (3) contemplates consideration of the circumstances with a view to determine whether there was sufficient cause to the contrary within the meaning of that expression under S.12 (3) of the Act and in the order of the Rent Control Court, which is under challenge here, there was no such consideration.

4. S.11 provides for eviction of a tenant from a building on various grounds, one of them being that he has defaulted to pay the rent and that such rent is in arrears. S.12 (1) obliges a tenant to pay the arrears admitted to be due from him and also the rent that may fall due from time to time to the extent admitted by him. This is necessary if his contenti