P. SOMARAJAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the conditions incorporated in the order of stay granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, the tenant came up under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and propriety of the said order. Originally, an application under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') was filed by the landlord for evicting the tenants, who are the respondents in the said application. They have suffered an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act, before the Rent Control Court. The prayer for eviction under Section 11(4)(i) was rejected by the Rent Control Court. The order under Section 11(2)(b) was passed subject to the application of Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. Subsequently, the tenants filed an application under Section 11(2)(c) for vacating the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and it is pending. As against the order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i), an appeal was preferred before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, in R.C.A. No.66/2016 and in that appeal, they moved an application for stay of the order passed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The First Appellate Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) passed an order of stay under Exhibit P8, which is extracted below for reference.

"As on 31.5.2016 Rs.4,12,413/- is the rent arrears. In spite of directions the amount not paid. So there shall be a stay as prayed for if the tenant pays the rent within 2 weeks. The tenant shall continue to pay the rent before 5th of every month. If the tenant makes any 2 default in paying monthly rents the stay shall stand vacated. The deposit of present arrears within 2 weeks and the prompt payment of future rent shall be conditions for stay."

2. It is well within the jurisdiction of Rent Control Appellate Authority to impose any condition while granting stay of operation of the order of eviction. But, the condition should strike a balance in between the rights and liabilities of the parties under the Act in which the appeal was preferred. Going by the above order, it is clear that the directions issued for deposit of arrears of rent were not complied with. So, a stay was granted as prayed for with a condition that the tenant should pay rent within two weeks and continue to pay rent before fifth of every month and that in the event of making any two defaults, the stay will stand vacated. There is a further direction to deposit the arrears of rent within two weeks. We are at a lost to understand why the Rent Control Appellate Authority proceeded to grant stay instead of resorting to Section 12 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act is extracted below for reference:

"12. Payment of deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction - (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 up to 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.

(2) The deposit under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time as the Court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed for the service of notice referred to in sub-section (4):

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not