The revisional jurisdiction is part and parcel of the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, and the orders of the subordinate courts merge in the order of dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition in limine.

1. The question that is referred for decision by a Division Bench is whether on the mere filing of a revision petition before this Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its dismissal at the admission stage the tenant could still bargain for another one month provided under S 11(2)(c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The landlord, the revision petitioner, filed a petition for eviction under S. 1.1(2)(b) of the Act on the ground that rent is in arrears, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. However, three months' time to pay the arrears was granted by the order of the Rent Control Court under S 11(2)(c) of the Act. The tenant, did not pay the arrears, but filed an appeal The appeal was dismissed. But the appellate authority granted another two months' time for depositing the arrears. The respondent did not deposit the arrears, but filed a revision petition under S.20 of the Act before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the revision petition, but granted another two months' time from 23-1-1978, i.e. the date of dismissal of the revision petition. Without paying the arrears, the tenant filed a revision petition under S.115 CPC. before this Court as CRP. No. 1584 of 1978 and that was dismissed at the admission stage, by order dated 14-6-1978 There is no dispute that the arrears of rent was deposited before the Rent Control Court within one month after the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

3. Subsequently, the tenant-respondent filed IA No. 1533 of 1978 before the Rent Control Court under S.11(2) (c) of the Act for vacating the eviction order. The Rent Control Court held that the deposit was not made in time and dismissed the IA. However, the Appellate Authority reversed that decision and that decision was confirmed by the District Court in revision under S 20 of the Act. The present revision is filed under S 115 CPC. against the said order of the District Court.

4. S.11(2) (c) of the Act reads as follows:

"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."

5. In the ruling reported in Kanakamma v. Sivasankaran Nair (1976 KLT. 911) this Court has held that the period of one month would be available from the date of disposal of a revision filed before the High Court under S.115 CPC. In the said decision Janaki Amma J. considered a prior decision of this Court reported in Pallari Chandu v. Abdul Kader Badsha (ILR.1960 Ker.1110). There this Court had held that 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. However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Shankar v. Krishnaji (AIR. 1970 SC. 1) the latter decision held that the reasoning of the former decision has no force.

6. The case in Shankar v. Krishnaji (AIR. 1970 SC. 1) arose under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act of 1947. In that case, after the order of dismissal of a revision petition passed by the High Court, the defeated party moved the High Court under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution for vacating the order. The Bench which heard the writ petition held that in spite of the dismissal of the petition under S 115 CPC. there could be interference under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution on a proper case being made out. After going into the merits of the case it was held that the orders of the courts below were liable to be set aside. In an appeal against this order the Supreme Court cons