ORDER
K.A. Swami, J.
1. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 24-2-1986 passed in Ex. Case No. 252/1985 on the file of the I Additional Munsiff, Hubli.
2. This C.R.P. is referred to a Division Bench by an order dated 25-2-1989 to decide whether the ratio of the decisions of this Court in Ratna Bai v. N. Narayana, 1972(2) Mys. L.J. 185 and B. Bhoja v. Athanasius Joseph Rochie and Anr., 1969(2) Mys. L.J. 552 still hold good, in the light of a decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasao Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshml Narayan gupta.
3. There was an order passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the petitioner In H.R.C. No. 23/1982 on 13-9-1985 directing the petitioner -Judgment debtor – (tenant) to deposit the arrears of rent of- Rs. 209/- within one month or to vacate and put the landlord in vacant possession of the petition premises in default thereof. The petitioner-tenant could not deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 209/- within one month from the date of the order. However, he deposited the arrears of rent on 15-10-1985 and made) an application Miscellaneous No. 14/1986 before the Court below for extension of time for depositing the amount. In the meanwhile, the Execution Case No. 252/1985 was also filed by the landlord for taking possession of the premises pursuant to the order dated 13-9-1985 passed in H.R.C. No. 23/1982 as the petitioner tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 209/- within one month or vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-landlord. The Court below considered the Execution Case No. 252/1985 and Miscellaneous Case No. 14/1986 together. It came to the conclusions that it was not permissible in law to extend the time for depositing the amount and grant relief against forfeiture of the tenancy. Accordingly, the Court below dismissed the Miscellaneous Case No. 14/1986. The objections filed to the Ex. Case No. 252/1985 were also rejected and a delivery warrant was ordered to be issued under Order 21 Rule 35 of C.P.C. namely for delivering the possession of the premises to the landlord-decree-holder.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition 14/1986, the petitioner-tenant preferred Revision (Rent) No. 75/1986 before the District Judge, Dharwad and preferred the present Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 24-2-1985 overruling the objections filed to the execution petition and directing to Issue delivery warrant for delivery of possession of the premises in Execution Case No. 252/1985. This revision petition has been referred by the learned single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench vide order dated 25-2-1989 In the light of a decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and another v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta. When this revision came up for hearing, it was brought to our notice that it was not known to the petitioner whether the Revision (Rent) No. 75/1986 filed before the Additional District Judge, Dharwad had been disposed of or is pending. Therefore, on 21-6-1990, we adjourned the case on the submission made by both the sides to enable them to ascertain the result of Revision (Rent) No. 75/1986 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Dharwad.
5. Today, it is brought to our notice that Revision (Rent) No. 75/1986 was dismissed on merits by the I Additional District Judge, Dharwad as long back as on 27-9-1986 itself. The petitioner should have challenged that order under Section 115 of C.P.C. before this Court. It is not as though the petitioner was not aware of the said order and that there was any difficulty in challenging that order before this Court. The petitioner was aware of it; but did not choose to challenge the same. However, on producing a certified copy of the order dated 27-9-1986 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Dharwad in Revision (Rent) No. 75/1986, It is submitted by Sri Jayaprakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that though the petitioner has failed to challenge the order within the period allowed by law, having regard to the fact that there was a common order passed by the Court of first instance in Miscellaneous Case No. 14/1986 and Execution Case No. 252/1985, this Court may, suo-motu, exercise revisional Jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P. Code. It is submitted that the case deserves suo motu exercise of jurisdiction In the light of a decision of the Supreme Court In Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and another v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta. It Is relevant to notice that merely because a decision rendered by the Court below Is opposed to a decision of the superior Court when a party aggrieved by the order and fully aware of it fails to challenge it for more than 3 1/2 years and thus allows it to become final, It would not be just and proper for this Court to suo motu exercise the jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. The present revision petitioner was very well aware of the fact that the decision in the present revision petition depended upon the correctness or otherwise of the order passed in Revision (Rent) No. 75/1986 on 27-9-1986 by the I Additional District Judge, Dharwad. Knowing all this fully well he chose to acquiesce In the order and did not choose to challenge that order even though the said order was not in conformity with the decision of the Superior Court. Therefore, in such circumstances, a mere fact that the order of the Court below is not in conformity with the order of the superior Court, is not by itself a sufficient ground to suo motu exercise the revisional jurisdiction when more than 3 1/2 years have elapsed from the date of the order of the Court below. Under these circumstances, we decline to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C.
6. In view of the fact that Revision (Rent) No. 75/ 1986 has been dismissed on 27-9-1986 by the I Additional District Judge, Dharwad and that order has become final, the order passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Hubli, in Execution Case No. 252/1985 overruling the objections of the petitioner and directing issue of delivery warrant for delivering vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-decree-holder, does not call for interference. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
7. However, we make it clear that the question of law raised in this Revision Petition and referred to a Division Bench is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.