Judgment The chief point urged in this Civil Revision Petition is that the learned Judge in the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision before him and as such his reversal of the appellate order of the Subordinate Judge is ultra vires. The argument is put this way. Section 12-B of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was inserted into the enactment by means of an Amending Act (VIII of 1951) and it came into force on 1st May, 1951, having been published in the official Gazette on that date, though it received the assent of the Governor nine days earlier on 21st April, 1951. The order of the Subordinate Judge reversing that of the Rent Controller was passed on 2nd April, 1951 and, such being the case, it is contended that at the time the order was passed, there was no right of revision to the District Judge and a subsequent amendment of the Act would not give him the jurisdiction. But there is an Explanation to section 12-B of the Act. It is in the following term:- “The jurisdiction of the High Court or District Court under this section shall extend also to orders passed or proceedings taken at any time within six months before the commencement of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment Act, 1951”. It is clear that the order of the Subordinate Judge was passed within six months prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. My attention was invited to a judgment of my learned brother Ramaswami Goundar, J., in Ganraj Poonamchand v. Venkataratnam1. On a perusal of the same it is clear that what the learned Judge decided was that in the matter which came before him, if was not competent to him to send back the case for a fresh finding as to whether the provisions of section 7 (2) of the Act had been complied with. There are observations in the same judgment to the effect that if orders had been passed within six months prior, a revision will lie. Otherwise, probably the revision to the learned Judge himself would not have been entertained. There are observations in the same judgment to the effect that if orders had been passed within six months prior, a revision will lie. Otherwise, probably the revision to the learned Judge himself would not have been entertained. On the plain words of the Explanation to section 12-B, I am satisfied that the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the revision. On the merits, the revisional Court has come to the conclusion that Arumugham Pillai was the real lessee and that the petitioner has come forward with a false case that Sivagnanam Pillai was a lessee under him and that there was a sub-lease to Arumugham Pillai. But it has to be mentioned in this connection that the learned District Judge seems to have disposed of the revision before him as if it were an appeal to him and not a revision. The powers of the High Court as well as the District Judge in entertaining revisions from the appellate orders are ad idem and the proper mode of dealing with such revisions is to find out whether the appellate Court acted illegally or irregularly, for the revisional Court cannot clothe itself with the powers of an appellate Court. In this case I am satisfied that there has been no miscarriage of justice and so no interference is necessary. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. K.S. ----- Petition dismissed.