The main legal point established in the judgment is that the depositing of arrears of rent is not a condition precedent for presenting an appeal under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. The court also emphasized the procedural requirements and the consequences of non-compliance under Section 12(2) and Section 12(3) of the Act.

BALANARAYANA MARAR, J.:- Revision is directed against the judgment of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode in R.C.A. 129 of 1990. That was an appeal against the order of Rent Control Court, Kozhikode-I in I.A. 4010/ 89 in R.C.P. 158 of 1987. The second appellant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner.

2. The rent control petition was filed by respondents 1 to 11 against revision petitioner and respondents 12 and 13 for eviction on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. Alleging that the tenant has failed to pay the admitted arrears the landlords moved the Rent Control Court by I.A. 4010/ 89 for an order under Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act. After hearing both sides the Rent Control Court by order dated 20-1-1990 directed the respondents in the Rent Control Petition to pay, or deposit the entire arrears of rent till date as claimed in the petition on or before 20-2-1990 or to show cause why all further proceedings shall not be stopped and respondents directed to put the petitioners in possession of the petition schedule building. That order was challenged before the Appellate Authority. By order dated 31-5-1990 the Appellate Authority dismissed the petition on account of the failure of the appellants to comply with the requirement under Section 12(2) of the Rent Control Act. Hence the revision.

3. Heard counsel on both sides.

4. Section 18(1)(b) enables any person aggrieved by an order of the Rent Control Court to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date of order. Section 12(1) inter alia directs that no tenant against whom an order for eviction has been passed shall be entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 18 unless he deposits with the Appellate Authority all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of deposit. A learned single Judge of this Court in the decision in Muhamed Kunju v. Rajamma (1989 (2) Ker LT 549) held that if the tenant's appeal before the Appellate Authority is not supported by the pre-deposit or pre-payment of the admitted arrears no valid appeal is preferred and unless the deposit or payment is made within the prescribed period the appeal presented will not become valid. subsequently either. The Appellate Authority found the appeal to be not maintainable on the basis of this decision. The decision has since then been overruled by a Division Bench in Pochappan Narayanan v. Gopalan (1990 (2) Ker LT 1) : (AIR 1991 Ker 154). The Division Bench held that paying or depositing of all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant is not a condition precedent for presenting an appeal under Section 18 of the Act. The appeal gets properly lodged when the same is presented in accordance with that section. It is further held that a tenant who does not fulfil the obligations imposed on him by sub-section (1) of Section 12 cannot be visited with the penal consequences contemplated by sub-sec. (3) unless all the conditions specified by subsection (2) are satisfactorily fulfilled. It is observed that the tenant has to be given one more opportunity by showing cause as to why penal consequence contemplated by subsection (3) should not be imposed on him even after the Court acts in accordance with subsection (2) of Section 12 and the tenant still commits default. It is only when the court is not satisfied with the cause shown that it can pass an order stopping all further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.

5. The Division Bench quoted with approval the following observations in C.V. Xavier v. Francis Leonard Pappali, (1975 Ker LT 542):

"It is difficult to read S. 12(3) independent of S. 12(2). It is true that S. 12(1) restricts the right of the tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made under S. 11 to contest the application before the Rent Control Court or to prefer appeal unless he had paid or pays to the landlord or