The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.11(2)(c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act and the principle of merger of orders passed in revision, which influenced the court's decision.

1. The petitioner in an application filed under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for Short 'the Act') has filed this revision petition. The respondent was a tenant of a building belonging to him. An order of eviction was passed by the Rent Control Court, Trivandrum on 19 21974 on the ground that the respondent made default of payment of rent and also on the ground that the building was required by the petitioner for the purpose of reconstruction. The respondent claimed Kudikidappu right in respect of the building. The matter was referred to the Land Tribunal who held that the building was not a hut. An order of eviction was passed in due course which was confirmed in appeal A revision petition was filed under S.20 of the Act before the District Court. The District Court confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate authority. The respondent preferred C.R.P. 1418 of 1974 before this Court challenging the finding of the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority and the District Court regarding her alleged Kudikidappu right. This Court dismissed the revision petition but allowed time to vacate the building. After the disposal of the revision petition, the respondent filed I. A. 13261 of 1974 before the Rent Control Court under S.11(2) (c) of the Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act for vacating the order of eviction on deposit of the arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition The appellate authority confirmed the order. In a revision petition filed against the order under S.20 of the Act, the District Court allowed the petition and directed the tenant to deposit the arrears due till the date of the order along with the costs incurred by the landlord within one month from that date. This order is challenged before this Court.

2. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that S.11(2) (c) is not applicable to the order of the High Court exercising powers of revision and, therefore, unless the deposit is made within the time prescribed by the Rent Control Court or within such extended period, the order of eviction is liable to be executed. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the period of one month referred to in S.11 (2) (c) is available for deposit of arrears when the final order passed is that of the High Court in revision No ruling of this Court interpreting Sec 11 (2) (c) has been pointed out.

3. S.11(2) (c) reads:

"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."

4. The contention put forward is that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is confined to the four corners of S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the principle of merger that is usually applied in the cases of orders and decrees passed in appeal is not available in the case of orders passed in revision. Reference has been made in this connection to the decision in State v. Guruviah Naidu (AIR. 1968 Madras 137), a case which arose under the Madras General Sales tax Act of 1939. The decision recognises the general principle that the order appealed against merges in the appellate order and that the appellate order is the only effective and enforceable order but states that this principle. is not unqualified in its application. The decision may not be of help in interpreting S.11 (2) (c) of the Act.

5. Another case which has been referred to is Palleri Chandu v. Abdul Kader Badsha (ILR.1960 Kerala 1110). The case arose under the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1959. There was an order of eviction passed against the tenant in that cas