M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

1. Appellant is the tenant and respondent in R.C.P. 104/2006 before Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. Respondents are the landlords petitioners. Petition Schedule building, admittedly, obtained on rent by the petitioner from Suresh on monthly rent. Suresh admittedly died on 18.1.2004. First respondent is the widow and other respondents, their children. The fact that on the death of Suresh, his rights devolved on respondents as his legal heirs was not disputed. Respondents instituted the R.C.P claiming an order of eviction under S. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965). An order of eviction under S. 11(2)(h) was claimed contending that monthly rent payable from2000 is ? 13,800/- per month. It was contended that petitioner defaulted to pay the rent from 10.12.2005 and in spite of notice demanding the arrears of rent, sent on 6.1.2006, rent was not paid. Petitioner resisted the R.C.P. contending that the respondents have no title to the building. It was based on the contention that the building does not belong to Suresh but to Sankunni Vaidyan, though fact that the building was obtained from Suresh was admitted. It was also admitted that monthly rent payable from 11.4.2000 is ? 13,800/-. Petitioner also did not dispute the fact that no rent was paid from 10.12.2005. Petitioner also contended that he had paid an advance of? 2,00,000/- which is liable to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. According to the petitioner he paid? 1,00,000/- on 19.11.1996? 25,000/- each on 9.1.1997, 10.2.1997, 20.2.1997 and 31.3.1997. As petitioner did not pay/deposit the rent which accrued even after the institution of the R.C.P, respondents filed I.A.9600/2007 under S.12 of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965, for a direction to the petitioner to put the respondents in possession of the building. Petitioner resisted the said petition reterating the contentions taken in the objection filed in the R.C.P. that there is denial of title and there is also payment of advance which is liable to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent.

2. By order dated 23.1.2008 Rent Control Court found that the denial of title is not bona fide and the petitioner admittedly paid rent to the respondents, after the death of original landlord and also admitted the monthly rent of ? 13,800/- and that it is not paid from 10.12.2005.The petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of ? 13,800/- from 10.12.2005 within thirty days from the date of the order. Petitioner challenged that order before the Appellate Authority, Emakulam in R.C.A. 57/2008. Petitioner contended that being an order passed under S. 11 (1), he is entitled to challenge the order in an appeal there is no separate order under S.11(1), the order under S. 12(1) is not sustainable. It was also contended that when there is a deposit of security amount, which is liable to be adjusted, petitioner is not liable to deposit the arrears of rent as directed and the direction to pay arrears of rent is not sustainable. Though the appeal was admitted, Appellate Authority did not grant an order of stay. Petitioner failed to deposit the amount within time provided under the order dated 23.1.2008. Rent Control Court, therefore, directed the petitioner to show cause why he shall not to be directed to put the landlords in possession of the building. Petitioner submitted a statement that as the liability to pay rent is challenged in R.C. A. 57/2008, he did not deposit the amount and hence, he is not liable to put the landlord in possession. Rent Control Court by order dated 24.6.2008 found that as no order of stay was passed by the Appellate Authority, petitioner is bound to pay or deposit the rent within the time and as he did not deposit the amount, landlords are entitled to an order under S.12(3) was passed. Petitioner was directed to put the landlords in possession of the buildings. R.C.A. 118/2008 is filed challenging the said order.

3. Ap