Somarajan, J.

1. The tenant came up in revision aggrieved by the order in I.ANo.1028 of 2013 in R.C.A.No.33 of 2013 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode.

2. An order was passed under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”) by the Rent Control Appellate Authority during the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal. Earlier, I.A.No.4138 of 2010 was filed before the Rent Control Court under Section 12 of the Act, which has ended in an order under Section 12(3) of the Act. It was challenged in R.C.A.No.33 of 2013 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, by the tenant. During the pendency of R.C.A.No.33 of 2013 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord preferred another application under Section 12 of the Act, I.A.No.1028 of 2013, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and an order was passed on 21.10.2013 under Section 12(3) of the Act, which is under challenge in this revision.

3. Admittedly, R.C.A.No.33 of 2013 was preferred by the tenant challenging an order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.83 of 2010 dated 18.12.2012, and hence the first question came up for consideration is:

Whether it is permissible to have a recourse under Section 12 of the Act during the appellate stage in an appeal, filed against an order of the Rent Control Court passed under Section 12(3) of the Act?

4. In order to resolve the above said issue, it is necessary to extract Section 12 (1) of the Act.

“Section 12(1) : 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 unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building upto 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 or the appellate authority, as the case may be.”

(emphasis supplied)

Section 12 deals with two situations; i.e., restricting the right of tenant to contest an application presumably filed by the landlord and the restriction to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act presumably by the tenant. The wording used in the first limb of section 12 is 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” makes the legal position clear that the first limb of Section 12 would come into play/operate only when there is an application for eviction by a landlord under Section 11 of the Act. The second limb of Section 12 says that “or to prefer an appeal under section 18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application”. The expression used and engrafted under the second limb of Section 12 on “the application” refers to the application made and mentioned under the first limb of Section 12(1); i.e., an application under Section 11 of the Act. No other interpretation is possible on a mere reading or on a strict interpretation of Section 12(1) of the Act.

5. In order to have the recourse under Section 12, it is a pre-requisite that there should be an application under Section 11, initiated by the landlords, or an appeal preferred by the tenant against the order under Section 11 of the Act. Without satisfying anyone of the above said conditions, there cannot be a recourse under Section 12 of the Act.

6. It is true that Section 18 is wide enough to intake orders passed by the Rent Control Court, involving adjudication of the rights and liabilities o