MARIYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising for determination in this writ application is whether the writ petitioner, the tenant of the building who had been ordered to be evicted from the building both by the Rent Control Court and by the Appellate Authority, the Subordinate Judge, can be heard to say in this writ application that the Revisional Authority (In this case it was the Additional District Judge who heard the revision taken by the petitioner) had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition and on that ground seek the quashing of the order passed in revision. Ex. P 1 is the order of the Additional District Judge passed in revision.

(2.) A revision is provided by S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. S.20 runs as follows:

(3.) In this case, the Appellate Authority under S.18 was admittedly the Subordinate Judge. The District Court was, therefore, the Revisional Authority. The contention that is raised by counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the Additional District Judge cannot be considered to be the District Court. He invited my attention to S.3 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957, which enacts: