JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner filed R.C.P. No.5 of 2020 before the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff–IV), Thiruvananthapuram, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking eviction of the respondent herein - tenant from the petition schedule building, in which the tenant is conducting a jewellery by name ‘Sulthana Jewellery’ on a monthly rent of Rs.80,000/-. The tenant entered appearance and filed counter in that Rent Control Petition. The landlady filed I.A.No.4 of 2021, an application under Section 12 of the Act seeking an order directing the tenant to remit the admitted arrears of rent amounting to Rs.17,60,000/- and in case of failure, to put her in possession of the petition schedule building. In that interlocutory application, which is marked as Ext.P3, the tenant filed Ext.P4 objection, which is dated 08.09.2021.

2. After considering the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court by Ext.P5 order dated 22.01.2022 directed the tenant to pay admitted arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month from January, 2020 onwards within a period of two months and to continue to pay the rent for the subsequent period, until termination of that proceedings, under Section

12(1) and (2) of the Act.

3. The grievance of the petitioner – landlady is that though Ext.P5 order is dated 22.01.2022, despite the fact that the tenant has not chosen to make any payment towards the admitted arrears of rent, the Rent Control Court is not proceeding further with the application filed under Section 12 of the Act, by passing appropriate orders in exercise of its powers under Section 12(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the landlady is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an order directing the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff–IV), Thiruvananthapuram, to pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in R.C.P.No. 5 of 2020, under Section

12(3) of the Act, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlady.

Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the respondent-tenant is dispensed with.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that a time bound consideration of an application under Section

12 of the Act is highly essential, otherwise the very object of that provision would be defeated.

7. Section 12 of the Act deals with payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. As per 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 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. As per Section 12(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). As per the proviso to Section 12(2), the time fixed by the court for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the order and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than two weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due. As