( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises out of an order passed in HRC. 20/69 on the file of the 1st Addl. Munsiff, Bharwar, on the 13th of December, 1972. The respondent, Channawwa filed the above petition in HRC. 20/69 against the petitioner Gundu Rao Pralhad Rao, praying for the eviction, of the petitioner from the premises described in the petition. It was her case that the petitioner was a tenant under her occupying the said premises. The petitioner pleaded that he was not a tenant under the respondent and the petition was liable to be rejected. He also pleaded that the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under S. 21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act. The issue whether the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent or not was tried as a preliminary issue by the learned Munsiff. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties and some documents were marked as exhibits. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced before him, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant and that he had jurisdiction to proceed with the case under the Mysore Rent Control Act. After recording the said finding he posted the case for further hearing on the other issues which arose for consideration. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the finding recorded by the learned Munsiff on the question whether the petitioner was a tenant or not, the petitioner has presented this revision petition under Sec. 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act. Section 50 reads as follows :" Revision by the High Court.- (1) The High Court may, at any time, call for and examine:- (1) the records relating to any decision given or proceedings taken by the District Judge; (ii) any order passed or proceeding taken by the Court under this act or any order under Ss. 14, 15, or S. 16, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of such decision, order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit; (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the proceedings in HRC. 29/69 are still pending before the learned Munsiff and no final order has been passed by him. . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the proceedings in HRC. 29/69 are still pending before the learned Munsiff and no final order has been passed by him. The question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the High court should in exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 50 interefere with the order of the learned Munsiff on the question whether the petitioner is a tenant or not at this stage. It is not disputed and it cannot be disputed that after a final order is passed by the Munsiff in the case pending before him, it is open to any party who is aggrieved by his order to file an appeal under S. 48 of the Act before the District Judge and to challenge in that appeal the correctness of the finding recorded by the Munsiff on the question whether the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent or not. It is needless to say that the power of a Court of appeal is co-extensive with the power of the Court of first instance in the absence of any limitation being placed on the appellate power by the statute affording the right of appeal. From the decision of the District Judge rendered in the appeal before him a revision petition lies to the High Court under clause (1) of S. 50 (1) of the Act. ( 4 ) AS explained by the Supreme Court and by this Court in a number of cases, the jurisdiction of this Court under S. 50, even though it is styled as a revisional jurisdiction in the statute, is much wider than the jurisdiction conferred on this Court under S. 115 CPC. The decision of the District judge on the issue in respect of which this revision petition has been presented can be canvassed before this Court in a revision petition presented against the order of the District Judge passed under S. 48 of the Act. The decision of the District judge on the issue in respect of which this revision petition has been presented can be canvassed before this Court in a revision petition presented against the order of the District Judge passed under S. 48 of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that having regard to the alternative remedy by way of an appeal available to the petitioner from the ultimate order passed by the Munsiff and the remedy under S. 50 (1), (i) of the Act, this Court should decline to interfere with the order of the learned Munsiff in exercise of Us power under clause (ii) of S. 50 (1) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE above view receives support from the observation of Shah, J. in major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 , made in respect of a case to which S. 115 CPC. was applicable, reads as follows :"that is not to say that the High Court is obliged to exercise its jurisdiction when a case is decided by a subordinate Court and the conditions in cls. (a), (b) or (c) are satisfied. Exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: the High Court is not bound to interfere merely because the conditions are satisfied The interlocutory character of the order, the existence of another remedy to an aggrieved party by way of an appeal from the ultimate order or decree in the proceeding or by a suit, and the general equities of the same being served bv the order made are all matters to be taken into account in considering whether the High Court, even in cases where the conditions which attract the jurisdiction exist, should exercise its jurisdiction. ' ( 6 ) THE above view of the Supreme Court is followed by the Supreme Court in another decision of the Supreme Court rendered recently, namely Brij Gopal mathur v. Kishan Gopal Mathur, CA 1606/67 dt. 20-2-73, SC. I, therefore, feel that this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under S 50 of the Act Hence, I decline to interfere with the order under revision , The petition is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .