1. The question involved in this Rent Control Revision is whether the Rent Control Court can strike off the defence of the tenant for non payment of admitted arrears of rent, instead of taking recourse to Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The respondent/landlady filed a Rent Control Petition against the petitioner/tenant under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The lease of the building was on 3.5.2005 fixing a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. Rs. 50,000/- was paid as security deposit by the tenant. It was alleged by the landlady, a widow, that she wanted to settle at Thiruvananthapuram and to set up residence in the petition schedule building. The landlady also alleged that the tenant made alterations to the building, so as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently.

3. The tenant denied the bonafide need. He also denied the ground raised under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The tenant runs tuition classes in English in the petition schedule building and also resides in that building. On 3.2.2010, the Rent Control Court passed an order directing the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent and also to deposit the rent which subsequently fell due. No application was filed by the landlady under Section 12(1) of the Act. The Rent Control Petition was listed for trial on 1.4.2013. On that date, the Rent Control Court struck off the defence of the tenant on the ground that the tenant failed to deposit the admitted arrears of rent as ordered to be paid. Thereafter, the Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition on the merits. In the order of the Rent Control Court, the only discussion on the merits of the case is the following:-

"7. On the basis of the above documents this court is of the view that the claim canvassed in the petition can be entertained. It is found that the petitioner is entitled to eviction under sub-sections 11(3) and 11(4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act."

4. The order passed by the Rent Control Court has the characteristics of an ex-parte order.

5. The tenant challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority directed the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The arrears were not fully deposited. Therefore, the Appellate Authority passed an order under Section 12(3) of the Act. That order as well the judgment of the Appellate Authority were challenged by the tenant in R.C.R. Nos. 124 and 125 of 2014. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the revisions as per the judgment dated 16.6.2014 and set aside the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appeal was restored to file on condition that the tenant should deposit before the Rent Control Court the rent payable up to and inclusive of 31.12.2014. In compliance with the order in R.C.R. Nos. 124 of 2014 and 125 of 2014, the tenant deposited the rent up to 31.12.2014 which includes the advance rent for a period of six months.

6. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Rent Control Appeal only on the ground that the tenant failed to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The oral evidence of the landlady was also taken note of by the Appellate Authority, in spite of the fact that she was not cross examined on account of striking off the defence. The Appellate Authority did not consider the question whether the Rent Control Court was justified in striking off the defence of the tenant. The judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is challenged by the tenant in this revision.

7. Section 12(1) of the Act provides that no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that Section, or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application, unles