The High Court does not have jurisdiction to interfere with the order of a subordinate court in a revision petition under S. 17 of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951, on the ground that the subordinate court had taken an erroneous view of the law.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. :

The respondents are the landlords of a house situate on Mamulpet Road, Bangalore in a portion of which the appellant firm is running a cloth shop as a tenant. That house bears three Nos. 135, 136 and 120. The portions numbered 135 and 136 are entirely in its possession. In so far as the portion No. 120 is concerned, it is admittedly in a dilapidated condition, and the appellant is in possession of only one room therein. The respondents made an application in the court of the First Munsiff at Bangalore under S. 8(2) (ix) and (xii) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act 1951 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that the house was reasonably and bona fide required by them for carrying out the reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the house being vacated and also upon the ground that the appellant has alternative accommodation of his own for locating his shop. Their application was allowed by the Munsiff who granted two months time to the appellant to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the respondents. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the District Court was dismissed. Thereupon it preferred an application for revision before the High Court under S. 17 of the Act. The main ground upon which the revision application was based was that the portion of the house bearing Nos. 135 and 136 did not require reconstruction at all and that the object of the respondents in making the application for eviction was to reconstruct the building in such a way that the appellant would not be able to obtain the same kind of accommodation in the new building which it now has. The argument advanced in support of the contention was that under S. 8 (2) (ix) of the Act what the landlord has to establish was that it was esesntial for him to reconstruct the house and that the mere desire on his part to reconstruct a new building after demolishing the existing one is not a relevant circumstance. The decision of the Punjab High Court in Labbu Ram v. Ram Prakash, AIR 1959 Punj 103 was relied upon on its behalf in support of this contention. The High Court, however, preferred the view taken in an earlier decision of the same High Court reported in Ram Chander v. Kidar Nath, AIR 1954 Punj 135 which had accepted the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Bhulan Singh v. Ganendra Kumar Roy, AIR 1950 Cal 74. The argument advanced before the High Court is repeated before us.

2. We think that that was not a matter which was open to the appellants to raise in a revision petition under S. 17 of the Act before the High Court and consequently cannot be canvassed before us. That section runs thus :

"(1) Except in respect of orders under S. 28, the High Court may, at any time, call for and examine the records relating to any decision given or proceeding taken by the District Judge or any order passed or proceeding taken by the court or the Controller under this Act, 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."

Provided that the powers conferred by this sub-section shall not be exercisable in any case in which an appeal lies under S. 15, unless the Controller or the court or the District Judge appears :-

(i) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him or it; or

(ii) to have failed to exercise his or its jurisdiction so vested; or

(iii) to have acted in the; exercise of his or its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."

No doubt, sub-s., (1) of S. 17 would indicate that the High Court has wide powers in dealing with revision applications, but the proviso to it which was added by Act 22 of 1954, restricts the powers of the High Court in any case in which an appeal lies under S.15 of the Act to the District Court. It is not disputed that the proviso applies to this case. Now, under the proviso it is clear that the p