P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. Does the dismissal of a tenant’s revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short, against a judgment of the Appellate Authority, deprive the landlord of the right to challenge the very same judgment of the Appellate Authority in revision, in all cases? What is the extent of effect of the doctrine of merger, if any? These are pithily, the questions raised for decision in these Rent Control Revisions.

2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. R.C.P.Nos.34 of 2003, 36 of 2003 and 38 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Rent Control Court, Kannur have been instituted in respect of different portions of a building occupied by three tenants. The landlord sought eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. In the course of the proceedings, the landlord died. On her death, her legal representatives continued the lis as additional landlords. The case set up in the Eviction Petition was that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that it needs to be reconstructed for the occupation of one of additional landlords. The Rent Control Court, by a common order, allowed R.C.P.No.36 of 2003 and R.C.P.No.38 of 2003, upholding all the grounds and dismissed R.C.P. No.34 of 2003. Even though, the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act was upheld, the tenants were not extended the benefit of first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to them as provided for under the third proviso to section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.

3. The common order of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.Nos.36 of 2003 and 38 of 2003 was challenged by the tenants concerned before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.157 of 2004 and R.C.A.No.4 of 2005. One of the landlords also challenged the decision in R.C.P.No.34 of 2003 before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.117 of 2005. The Appellate Authority, by a common order, dismissed R.C.A.Nos.157 of 2004 and 4 of 2005 preferred by the tenants and allowed R.C.A.No.177 of 2005 preferred by the landlord, ordering eviction in R.C.P.No.34 of 2003 also under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. Further, the Appellate Authority directed the landlords to reconstruct the building within six months and extended to the tenants the benefit of first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to them, as provided for under the third proviso to section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The operative portion of the decision of the Appellate Authority dealing with the said direction reads as follows :

“The landlords will reconstruct the building within 6(six) months from the date of this judgment and the tenants shall have the first option to have the reconstructed buildings allotted to them with the liability to pay fair rent.”

This direction of the Appellate Authority is under challenge in these Rent Control Revisions.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in a case where the bonafide need for reconstruction of the building goes along with the bonafide need for own occupation, the tenants are not entitled to the benefit of the third proviso to Section11(4)(iv) of the Act, as no question of letting out to anybody including the evicted tenant arises in such cases.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that two of them had challenged the impugned decision of the Appellate Authority, in R.C.R.No.418 of 2012 and R.C.R.No.80 of 2013 before this court and both the Revision Petitions have been dismissed, after hearing the landlords. According to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment, in the circumstances, merged with the decisions in R.C.R.No.418 of 2012 and R.C.R.No.80 of 2013 and therefore, interference would result in interference with the judgments of this Court in the aforesaid Revision Petitions. In other words, according to them, the Revision Petitions, in the circumstances, are not maintainabl