The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific denial in legal proceedings and highlights the obligation of the tenant to pay arrears of rent as per Section 12(1) of Act 2 of 1965.

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the summary order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The above summary order was passed on 8/4/2010. In order to appreciate whether the above order is legal and proper, it will be necessary to read the order dated 11/3/2010 passed by the learned Rent Control Court in the application under Section 12 which was filed by the landlady. Copy of the above order is placed before us by Sri. G.Unnikrishnan. We are convinced on a reading of that order that the learned Rent Control Court has examined the question whether there is justification for proposing a summary order under Section 12(3) and also that show cause notice has been issued to the tenant as to why he should not be summarily evicted. The order dated 8/4/2010 is obviously passed by the Rent Control Court noticing that no satisfactory cause is shown by the tenant against the proposed summary order of eviction.

2. The learned Appellate Authority did not notice any infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Control Court or in the procedure followed by that court. It was accordingly, that the impugned judgment dismissing the rent control appeal was passed.

3. In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.T.I.Unniraja, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. Drawing our attention to Section 12 of Act 2 of 1965, Mr.Unniraja submitted that summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) can be passed only when there is admission from the part of the tenant regarding the arrears of rent. According to him, as it is contended through paragraph 9 of the statement of objections filed by the tenant to the rent control petition, that there is no arrears of rent as claimed in the rent control petition, it cannot be taken that arrears of rent is admitted . What Section 12 requires is unqualified admission from the part of the tenant according to the counsel. Mr.Unniraja referred to the reply notice which was sent on his client's behalf to the landlady's advocate and submitted that in the reply notice also it was specifically contended that the arrears of rent demanded by the landlady is not correct. The eviction order under Section 12(3) passed by the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the same are illegal, irregular and improper as they have been passed ignoring the vital fact that the tenant did not admit the rent to be in arrears, according to Mr.Unniraja.

4. All the submissions of Sri.T.I.Unniraja were opposed by Sri.G.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady. According to Mr.Unnikrishnan, the objections raised by the tenant do not amount to specific denial of the allegation of the landlady regarding the rent in arrears. What is not specifically denied should be assumed to be admitted. The learned counsel would refer to the rules relating to pleadings. The counsel submitted that even though the order under Section 12(3) is a cryptic one, the same is passed only consequent to the earlier order dated 11/3/2010. According to him, the earlier order dated 11/3/2010 directing the tenant to show cause against the proposed summary order was passed after hearing the parties in detail and after considering the contentions actually raised.

5. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. The short question, which arises for decision before us, is whether the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) and the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the same warrants interference within the contours of Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. According to us, the above question can be answered only in the negative. It is a fundamen