Judgment :- 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners in the Rent Control Court (landlord) who raised a preliminary objection before the revisional authority, namely, the District Court, that the revision petition was not maintainable since the admitted arrears of rent had not been deposited as contemplated by the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 2 of 1965. This preliminary objection was overruled by the District Judge on the ground that S.12 of Act 2 of 1965 contemplated the deposit of arrears of rent by the tenant only when proceedings were pending before the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority and that there was no prohibition in the revision being admitted notwithstanding the deposit of the arrears of rent. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the provisions of S.12 were applicable to the revisional authority also and for this purpose he sought to rely on a Full Bench ruling of this Court reported in Kurien v. Saramma Chacko (1964 KLT.1 F.B.). I am afraid, the Full Bench ruling has no application to the facts of this case. In 1964 KLT.1 the Court was concerned with the question as to whether the expression "Rent Control Court" used in S.11 (2)(b) included, within its ambit, the appellate authority and the revisional authority. The Full Bench held that, in the context in which the expression "Rent Control Court" had been used in S.11(2)(b), it would take is the appellate and the revisional authority also. A contrary view would lead to a large number of anomalies as clearly pointed out by the Full Bench and it was also observed that in interpreting statutes, the legislative intent has to be gathered by reading all the provisions of the statute. So far as S.12 is concerned, there are indications in the wording.of that provision that it was intended to apply only to the rent control court and the appellate authority and the legislature did not intend the provisions to apply to the revisional authority. So far as S.12 is concerned, there are indications in the wording.of that provision that it was intended to apply only to the rent control court and the appellate authority and the legislature did not intend the provisions to apply to the revisional authority. S.12(1) reads as follows: "No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under S.11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that section, or to prefer an appeal under S.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." A reading of the above provision itself makes it clear that it was intended to apply only to the proceeding? which were pending in a Rent Control Court or the appellate authority. The deliberate omission of the word 'revisional authority' is an indication of the intention of the legislature to exclude proceedings before the revisional authority so far as the payment or deposit of the arrears of admitted rent is concerned. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention of the petitioners that the revision petition is not maintainable in the court below for the reason that arrears of admitted rent have not been deposited. 3. It may, however, be made clear that it will be open to the petitioners to support the order of the appellate authority by contending before the revisional authority that the appeal was not maintainable since the arrears of admitted rent have not been deposited before the appellate authority when the matter came up for hearing. This is however, a matter for the revisional authority to consider and there appears to be no necessity for me to give any direction on this point. With these observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed, but there will be no order regarding costs.