The Rent Controller is not obligated to issue a specific notice to tenants failing to deposit arrears under Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026 Soumen Sen , C.J .

We have heard Mr. C. Harindramohan Nair, learned coun-

sel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Ad- vocate representing Mr. P. Martin Jose, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In view of the admitted position that the arrears of rent de- termined were not deposited, and that the petitioner neither filed any application before the passing of the final order to show sufficient cause for being unable to pay the said amount, nor contended that the said amount was not an admitted liabil- ity, and in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Shaji M. v. S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam No.610 , Alappuzha and Another¹, the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority does not call for any interference. In fact, the Full Bench has explained the scope of Section 12 (3), addressing the objections raised by the petitioner that the order could not have been passed with- out serving a specific notice to show cause before the closure of

1 2020 (2) KHC 574

the proceedings and directing eviction, as discussed in para-

graph 11 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as follows:

“11. In view of the principle evolved in Narayanan V. Vinod (supra), from the language of Sec- tion 12 (3) of the Act and from the legislative intent, it is not for the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority to issue any separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent. Instead, when the time fixed by the court for deposit of the arrears of rent runs out and the tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not expected to pass an order ordering ejectment of the tenant forthwith. The Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should normally ad- journ the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date fixed for deposit, thereby allowing reasonable time to the tenant to show sufficient cause for not depositing the rent if he has committed default in payment of the arrears of rent. We are of the considered opinion that the interpretation made and the directions issued in Narayanan V. Vinod (supra) is more apt and appropri- ate to be held as a view which can be legally sustained. It cannot be disputed that the opportunity to be af- forded to the tenant to show 'sufficient cause' with re- spect to the failure to pay or to deposit the rent as di- rected in subsections (1) & (2), within the date stipu-

lated, is not an empty formality. The principle of natu- ral justice would mandate that the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should af- ford the tenant with such an opportunity. But the question is whether the Rent Controller or the Appel- late Authority need to issue any specific notice in this regard to the tenant to show cause. It is to be noticed that, the consequences provided under sub-section (3) follows when there occurres a default in complying with the direction for deposit or payment of the admitted ar- rears. Therefore, on the date stipulated for effecting such payment, by virtue of the order passed under subsections (1) & (2), the tenant becomes fully aware that unless sufficient cause has not been shown for the default committed, the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and direction to put the landlord in pos- session of the building, would follow automatically. Therefore there is no necessity to alert the tenant by is- suing any specific notice in this regard, calling upon him to show 'sufficient cause'. On the other hand, pro- viding of a further opportunity after the last date stipu- lated for effecting the payment or the deposit, is not mandatory. If no sufficient cause is shown within such extended date to which the rent control petition is poste