Judgment :- K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. Petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate decision or order quashing Ext. P5 order passed by the 5th respondent. 2. Petitioner is the tenant/respondent in B.R.C.O.P.No. 3/84 before the Rent Control Court, Mavelikara. The deceased first respondent and one Sivaraman Nair filed the B.R.C.O.P. for eviction before the Rent Control Court against the petitioner under Ss.11(2),11(3),11(4)(iv) and 11(5) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Court by order dated 21.12.85 allowed the petition for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act and disallowed the claim of eviction on the other grounds. A copy of the order passed by the Rent Control Court is marked as Ext. P1 in this petition. They challenged that order before the Rent Control appellate Authority, Mavelikkara in R.C. A.No.13/86. Since the petitioner did not deposit the arrears of rent inspite of granting four weeks time for deposit under S.12(2) of the Act and he remained exparte, the Rent Control appellate Authority by order dated 30.9.87 a copy of which is marked as Ext. P2 herein, allowed the petition for eviction under Ss.11(2),11(3),11(4) (vi) and 11(5) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 giving the petitioner option to deposit the arrears of rent within 60 days from the date of that order. 3. Meanwhile, the 2nd petitioner in B.R.C.O.P., the 2nd appellant in R.C, A. died and the first petitioner/ first appellant in the R.C. A. along with the legal representatives of the 2nd petitioner filed E.P.No. 59/89 before the Munsiffs Court, Mavelikkara, for delivery of possession. A true copy of the E.P. is marked as Ext. P3 in this O.P. The petitioner has contended that the order passed by the Rent Control Court is not executable since that order merged with the order passed by the Rent Control appellate Authority in R.C. A.No.13/86 and the appellate Authority passed the order in R.C. A. 13/86 without impleading the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd appellant therein, that order is illegal and nonest. The petitioner also contended that the entire arrears of rent due as per S.11(2) of Kerala Act 2 of 1965 has been deposited by him and therefore, he is not liable for eviction under S.11(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. The petitioner also contended that the entire arrears of rent due as per S.11(2) of Kerala Act 2 of 1965 has been deposited by him and therefore, he is not liable for eviction under S.11(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. The Munsiffs Court over-ruled both these contentions and directed delivery of possession the building as per order dated 1.2.90. A true copy of that order is marked as Ext. P4. The petitioner challenged Ext. P4 order passed by the Munsiff s Court, Mavelikkara in E.P.No. 59/89 in revision before the Rent Control Revisional Court, Mavelikkara. The Revisional Authority by order dated 13.11.90 upheld the order for delivery of possession on the ground that the Rent Control Court had passed a valid order for eviction under S.11(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 and the arrears of rent is not deposited by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the appellate Authority without impleading the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd appellant is null and it cannot be executed against the petitioner is upheld by t" ;e revisional court and therefore, the grounds for eviction under Ss.11(3), 11(4)(iv) and 11(5) of the Act do not exist. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority upholding the order of eviction under S.31(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 and the consequent order for delivery of possession of the building on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit the arrears of rent with interest, the petitioner has tiled this Original Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution. 4. The only point that is to be considered in this case is whether the order for delivery of possession passed by the Munsiff s Court in execution of the order in B. R.C.O.P.No. 3/84 of the Rent Control Court, Mavelikkara is Segal and sustainable. The facts that the petition schedule building involved in this case belonged to the mother of the first respondent in this O.P. and she executed a gift deed in respect of the building in favour of the deceased Sivaraman Nair reserving a life interest in favour of the first respondent and the first respondent and Sivaraman Nair filed {He B. R.C. O.P. for eviction before the Rent Control Court on various grounds and the Rent Control Court allowed eviction under S.11(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 are admitted. Even though the Rent Control appellate Authority upheld the order for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act and also granted eviction under Ss.11(3),11(4) (iv) and 11(5) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965, that order passed by the Rent Control appellate Authority is held to be a nullity in so far as the order for eviction under Ss.11(3),11(4) (iv) and 11(5) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 by the Revisional Court as evidenced by Ext. P5 order. That order is challenged by the respondents and has become final. 5. The petitioner has tiled a memo before this court on 12.8.96 to the effect that the first respondent died in 1993 and as he was unmarried, no legal representatives is to be impleaded in this case. 6. The fact that the deceased first respondent herein was entitled to life interest in the petition schedule building as per the gift deed executed by his mother in favour of his brother deceased Sivaraman Nair is not disputed. Under S.2(3) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 'landlord' includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. Therefore, the deceased first respondent herein who was a life interest holder entitled to receive rent in respect of the building during his life time is the land lord in respect of the building as far as the petitioner is concerned with regard to payment of rent as contemplated under S.11(2) of the Act. Therefore, mere cannot be any doubt or objection with regard to the right of deceased first respondent herein to claim eviction of the building for non-payment of rent under S.11(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. 7. The contention of the petitioner that since the order passed by the appellate Authority evidenced by Ext. Therefore, mere cannot be any doubt or objection with regard to the right of deceased first respondent herein to claim eviction of the building for non-payment of rent under S.11(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. 7. The contention of the petitioner that since the order passed by the appellate Authority evidenced by Ext. P2 is a nullity for non-impleading the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd appellant therein, there is an executable order in this case, since the order passed by the Rent Control Court is merged with the order passed by the appellate Authority in appeal, which is illegal and nonest is not sustainable. The legality of the order passed by the appellate Authority affects only the re lie granted by the appellate Authority with regard to the eviction under S.11 (3), 11(4) (iv) and 11(5) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 passed by the appellate Authority for the first time in appeal and it does not affect the original order passed by the Rent Control Court for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act which is only confirmed by the appellate Authority. The finding of the Revisional Authority in this regard is perfectly legal and valid and is not open to any challenge in this case. Therefore, the contention that there is no valid executable order under S.11(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 is not sustainable. 8. The only f "ther question to be considered is whether the petitioner has deposited or paid the entire arrears of rent with interest and costs of the proceedings as provided in S.11(2)(c) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. Though the petitioner has contended that he has paid the entire rent due under S.11(2) of the Act 2 of 1965, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner has paid the entire rent with interest and costs as provided under S.11(2)(c) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 within the time allowed under law. The Execution Court as well as the Revisional Court found that the petitioner has not paid the arrears of rent due under S.11(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. 9. The Execution Court as well as the Revisional Court found that the petitioner has not paid the arrears of rent due under S.11(2) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. 9. The petitioner has vehemently contended that in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Chinnamma v. Gopalan (1995 (2) KLT 755) to the effect that the liability of the tenant is only to pay or deposit the rent due at the time of sending notice demanding arrears of rent by the landlord and the tenant need not deposit the arrears of rent upto the date of petition and rent which accrues due thereafter during pendency of proceedings, the petitioner is not liable to deposit the entire rent found due as per Ext. P1 order. It is pertinent to note that the order for eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground of arrears of rent in this case has become final much prior to the pronouncement of the above referred judgment by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend now on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that the orders which have been passed much earlier to the pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court which had already become final is incorrect. If such a contention of the petitioner is accepted, it will lead to disastress consequence as it will open the flood gate to reopen all the orders for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent which have become final much earlier to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and therefore the judgment has only prospective application. 10. Therefore, all the contentions raised by the petitioner are not sustainable and I find that Ext. P5 order passed by the Revisional Authority is perfectly legal and valid and this original petition is devoid of any merit. Therefore, the original petition is dismissed.