Judgment :- 1. This Original Petition is in challenge of Ext. P7 order passed by a District Judge in exercise of revisional powers under S 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') by which the District Judge remanded the case to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal of an application filed under S.11 (2) (c) of the Act. 2. The facts are, it short, these: A landlord filed an application for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The application was allowed and an order of eviction was passed on the said ground. The matter was taken up in appeal, without success and it was again taken up before the District Court is revision. While dismissing the application for revision, the District Court disallowed the prayer made by the tenant for granting further time to deposit. The order of the District Judge is dated 18-9-1982 and a copy of it is marked as Ext. P3 Within one month from the date of Ext. P3 order, the tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent together with interest and cost and filed en application (I.A. 898/82) before the Rent Control Court praying for vacation of the order. Rent Control Court dismissed the application on the sole ground that the District Court had earlier refused to grant further tine to deposit the arrears of rent. The Appellate Authority concurred with the said reasoning and dismissed the appeal. But the District Court made the observation that the remedy available to the tenant under S.11 (2) (c) of the Act is one in addition to the right to pay or tender rent. Hence the District Judge remanded the application to the Rent Control Court with a direction to consider it afresh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when once the court disallows further time for making deposit of arrears of rent, the tenant forfeits his right to have the eviction order vacated under S.11 (2) (c) of the Act. 4. It is not disputed that the period of one month envisaged in S. (2) (c) could be counted from the date of order passed in revision. Deposit of arrears of rent within one month from the date of decision of the revision is held to be in order in Kanakamma v. Sivasankaran Nair (1976 K.L.T. 911). 4. It is not disputed that the period of one month envisaged in S. (2) (c) could be counted from the date of order passed in revision. Deposit of arrears of rent within one month from the date of decision of the revision is held to be in order in Kanakamma v. Sivasankaran Nair (1976 K.L.T. 911). It was held in Kurien v. Saramma Chacko (1964 K.L.T. 1) that Rent Control Court, for the aforesaid purpose, includes appellate authority as well as revisional court. So the deposit made within one month from the date of revisional order will be in compliance with the requirement in S.11 (2) (c) of the Act, to get the aforesaid period to make the deposit for other reasons. 5. So the question now to be decided is whether tenant would forfeit his right to deposit the arrears of rent as per S.11 (2) (c) on account of the refusal to grant further time when the tenant was fighting against the order passed under S.11 (2) (b). The order which the Rent Control Court can pass under clause (b) is an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Before passing the order, court has to be satisfied that the tenant has not paid the rent, which is in arrears, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy or (when there is no such agreement) by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. Even if a tenant pays the rent after the said period, and during the pendency of proceedings under Clause (b) the jurisdiction of the court to pass the order under the clause does not cease. However, no landlord would be interested in having an order under that clause, if the tenant has paid the entire arrears during the pendency of proceedings under clause (b) because such an order is liable to be vacated. But if the court passes the order under clause (b) since the tenant has not deposited the arrears of rent till the passing of the order, in what manner does clause (c) apply? But if the court passes the order under clause (b) since the tenant has not deposited the arrears of rent till the passing of the order, in what manner does clause (c) apply? S.11 (2) (c) reads thus: "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, at the case may be, it shall vacate that order." 6. The need for application of the above clause arises only after the passing of the order under clause (b). When the power of revisional authority under S, 20 of the Act is invoked in respect of an order passed under clause (b), of S.11 (2) it shall be confined to the order passed under that clause. It is possible that in exercise of revisional powers the order may remain undisturbed, or modified or even set aside. But no such exercise shall have application to the rights conferred on the tenant to have the order vacated under S.11 (2) (c) of the Act. Refusal to grant further time, when the revision is against the order under clause (b), therefore, has no consequence when tenant deposits the arrears of rent together with interest and cost within one month from the date of order. The District Judge was hence right in directing the Rent Control Court to consider I.A. 898/82 afresh. I dismiss this Original Petition.