The court clarified the interpretation of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, specifically S.11(2)(c), and emphasized that the order passed by the District Court did not merge with the decision of the High Court in the Civil Revision Petition, impacting the calculation of the period for depositing the arrears.

1. The revision petitioners were petitioners in I.A. 5856 of 1983 in R.C. P. No. 139 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode-II. They are tenants. The respondents are landlords. The Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction against the revision petitioners under S.11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act on 31-7-1979. An appeal filed from the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority on 24 9-1981. The revision filed from the aforesaid order was dismissed on 8-8-1983 by the District Court. It is said that the revision petitioners deposited the entire arrears on 6-10-1983. They invoked S 11(2)(c) of the Act (Act 2 of 1965). S.11(2)(c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is to the following effect:

"11(2)(c). The order of the Rent Control Court directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building shall not be executed before the expiry of one month from the date of such order or such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its discretion allow; and if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings within the said period of one month or such further period, as the case may be; it shall vacate that order."

2. Admittedly the arrears were deposited and the court moved more than one month after the order was passed by the District Court in revision.

The order in revision was passed on 8-8-1983 and the deposit was made only on 6-10-1983. But the revision petitioners contend that they filed CRP. No. 2646 of 1983 before this court against the order of the District Court passed in revision. The said Civil Revision Petition was dismissed only on 28th September, 1983 and so when the deposit was made on 6-10-1981 the period of one month has not elapsed. The revision petitioners are entitled to get a period of one month from the date of the dismissal of CRP. No. 2646 by this Court on 28-9-1983.

3. It is conceded that CRP. No. 2646 of 1983 was dismissed by my learned brother Justice Sri. K. Sukumaran on 28-9-1983 The revision was dismissed in limine. According to the revision petitioners, the order passed by the District Court in revision on 8-8-1983 has merged in the order passed by this court in CRP. No. 2646 of 1983 dated 28-9-1983 and so, the period of one month should be calculated from the date of rejection of the Civil Revision Petition by this court, i.e. from 28-9-1983.

4. I am afraid, the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioners is devoid of force. In Palleri Chandu v. Abdul Kader Badsha (ILR.1960 Ker.1110 at page 1115), a case wherein the scope of rejection of a CRP. at the admission stage came up for consideration, Sankaran, C. J. speaking for the Bench held as follows:

"The exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not the same or similar to the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. While acting under S.115, the High Court will interfere with the order of the Subordinate Court only if it is satisfied of the existence of one or more of the grounds specified in that section. If the High Court is not so satisfied, it will refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under that section. It will not be correct to say that the refusal to interfere in revision amounts to a confirmation of the order of the Subordinate Court. The position is different in the case of an appeal.

The dismissal of CRP. 731/1958 by the High Court on account of its refusal to interfere with the order of the District Court, cannot be equated to the dismissal of an appeal by the High Court against the order of the District Court and the consequent confirmation of that Court's order."

Similarly in Padmalaya v. Shyamsundar (AIR. 1980 Orissa 1) R. N. Misra, J. fas he then was) held as follows:

"Judicial view seems to be almost unanimous that dismissal of a proceeding in the higher forum at the stage of admission does not have the effect of merger of the decision of