ORDER : (Johnson John, J.) The revision petitioners are the tenants, who suffered an order of eviction under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') and subsequently evicted in E.P No.377 of 2022 on 16-10-2023. Against the order under Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Court, the petitioners filed an appeal as RCA No.23 of 2023 with a petition to condone the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal and the Appellate Court dismissed the petition to condone the delay for want of sufficient cause with an observation that the appeal and delay condonation petition filed at the fag end of the execution proceedings is only a dilatory strategy to drag the proceedings. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the landlords filed I.A No.4 of 2021 in RCP No.46 of 2021 seeking payment of admitted arrears of rent even before the tenants filed their objection to the RCP and a perusal of Section 12 of the Act would show that the contest in the RCP is a prerequisite to entertain an application under Section 12 of the Act. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners pointed out that in the order under Section 12(1) of the Act, even though, 30 days time is fixed for remitting the rent arrears from February 2021 till the date of the order, no time is fixed for payment of the rent arrears from 01-02-2020 till 31-01-2021 and in that circumstance, the order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) of the Act on 03-09-2022 is not legally sustainable. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the proceedings of the Rent Control Court in the RCP dated 30-08-2022 shows thus, “Both represented. Order not complied. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the proceedings of the Rent Control Court in the RCP dated 30-08-2022 shows thus, “Both represented. Order not complied. Issue show cause.” It is argued that in spite of the above order to issue show cause, no notice was issued from the court or served on the revision petitioners and in this connection the learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that as per Rule 22 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979, the notice is required to be served on the person concerned personally by delivering or tendering to him and in the absence of personal service of show cause notice the order dated 03-09- 2022 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/ landlords argued that after the eviction order under Section 12(3) of the Act on 03-09-2022, the tenants appeared before the execution court and contested the E.P seriously and only at the fag end of the execution proceedings they filed the RCA with a petition to condone the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Appellate court dismissing the petition to condone the delay. It is argued that the petitioners filed the appeal with a delay condonation petition at the fag end of the execution proceedings with an intention to sabotage the execution proceedings. Even though the petitioner pleaded that on account of his health issues, he was not in a condition to meet his counsel to take the necessary steps to file the appeal and that he was also hospitalized for serious respiratory illness, no satisfactory evidence is adduced to substantiate the said pleadings and it is also evident that during the relevant period, the tenants appeared in execution proceedings and seriously contested the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited the decision of this Court in Pochappan Narayanan v. Gopalan ( 1990(2) KLT 1 ) in support of the contention that the jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act can be exercised only after filing of the objection by the tenants in the RCP. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited the decision of this Court in Pochappan Narayanan v. Gopalan ( 1990(2) KLT 1 ) in support of the contention that the jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act can be exercised only after filing of the objection by the tenants in the RCP. But in the above decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners the question considered was whether the tenant can file an appeal before payment of the admitted arrears of rent and this Court held that the word 'prefer' has been used in sub-section (1) of Section 12 not to convey the lodging of the appeal but to convey that the appeal already lodged in accordance with Section 18 shall not be proceeded with or prosecuted further if the conditions specified in Section 12(1) are not fulfilled. 6. The proceedings of the Rent Control Court in RCP No.46 of 2021 would clearly show that the tenants entered appearance on 29-10-2021 and thereafter several adjournments were granted for filing objection in I.A No.4 of 2021 and even though there was representation for the tenants, no objection was filed to I.A No.4 of 2021 till 22-07- 2022 and on 22-07-2022 the Rent Control Court heard I.A No.4 of 2021 and posted the same for orders to 30-07-2022. Therefore, it can be seen that the tenants appeared through their counsel in the RCP and the tenants were also granted time for filing their objection to the petition under Section 12 of the Act and in spite of opportunity they have chosen not to file any objection and it was in that circumstance the Rent Control Court passed the order under Section 12(1) of the Act. 7. 7. As per Section 12(1) of the Act, 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. 8. As per Section 12 of the Act, the tenant is entitled to contest the petition only if he deposits the arrears of rent and if he fails to do so, he has no right to contest the petition. There is nothing in Section 12(1) of the Act to show that filing of objection or counter statement by the tenant is a prerequisite to entertain an application under Section 12 of the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Further, if such an argument is accepted that will defeat the time frame provided in Section 24 of the Act which mandates the Rent Control Court to dispose of a petition as far as practicable within four months from the date of appearance of the parties thereto. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in this regard is not sustainable. 9. Another argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in the order under Section 12(1) of the Act, no time is fixed for payment of the rent arrears from 01-02-2020 till 31- 01-2021 even though 30 days time is fixed for remitting the rent arrears from February 2021 till the date of the order. 9. Another argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in the order under Section 12(1) of the Act, no time is fixed for payment of the rent arrears from 01-02-2020 till 31- 01-2021 even though 30 days time is fixed for remitting the rent arrears from February 2021 till the date of the order. But from a conjoint reading of Clause (1) and (2) in the result portion of the order under Section 12(1) of the Act dated 30-07-2022, it can be inferred that the time fixed for the payment of the balance amount of rent from 01-02-2020 till 31-01-2021 is also 30 days from the date of the order. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the proceedings of the Rent Control Court would clearly show that after passing the order under Section 12(1) of the Act on 30-07-2022, sufficient time was granted to the tenants for compliance and the order under Section 12(3) of the Act was passed only on 03-09-2022. The petitioners have no case that they filed any statement or sought further time for compliance with the order under Section 12(1) of the Act. The contention of the revision petitioners based on the proceedings of the court below dated 30-08- 2022 that the petitioners are not called upon to show cause by personal service of show cause notice is also not sustainable in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shaji M v. S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam ( 2020(2) KLT 866 ), wherein it was held that it is not necessary for the Rent Control Court 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. In the said decision, it was also held that when the time fixed for deposit of the arrears of rent runs out and the tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not expected to pass an order ordering ejectment of the tenant forthwith and that the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should normally adjourn 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. From the proceedings of the Rent Control Court, it can be seen that sufficient opportunity was granted to the tenants to show sufficient cause with respect to the failure to pay or deposit the rent as directed in Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act and therefore, we find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in this regard. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority and in the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders, this revision petition fails and therefore, the same is dismissed.