The revisional court under S.20 of the Act has the power to admit additional evidence if necessary to ascertain the legality, regularity, or propriety of the impugned order.

Manoharan, J.

This is a petition to receive two documents as additional evidence. Respondent has filed counter affidavit.

2. Revision petition is by the respondents in R.C.P. 49 of 1986 against the judgment of the appellate authority reversing the order of the Rent Controller refusing eviction under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the act'). Petitioners denied the allegation of the respondent - landlord that he bona fide needs the petition schedule building for the occupation of his dependant son PW-2. Petitioners also maintained that the respondent is in possession of other shop rooms. The Rent Controller on the basis of Ext. A2 found that the land-lord is in possession of a shop room. The said finding was reversed by the appellate authority.

3. Petitioners aver that the two documents sought to be admitted in evidence would show that, as a matter of fact the landlord had obtained possession of the said room pursuant to the order in R.CP. 25/1984 and that the landlord instituted the said petition for eviction of the tenant of the eastern shop room and obtained delivery. Document No.1 produced along with petition is the copy of the order in R.C.P. 25 of 1984, and document No. 11 is the copy of the execution petition and the diary of the execution court. Document No.1 shows that, eviction was ordered under S.11(2)(b),11(3) and 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965 and the execution diary in document No. 11 shows delivery was recorded oil 24-7-1984. In view of these two documents, the petitioners state that the contention of the landlord respondent that he did not obtain possession of the eastern shop room is not true. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent to this petition, he has contended that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to admit the additional evidence, that the said shop room is in the possession of one Sadanandan, and that the said shop room is only a Charumuri which is not suitable for the grocery business for which the eviction of the petition schedule building is sought.

4. S.23 of the Act refers only to the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority. This court exercises revisional jurisdiction as per S.20 of the Act. Therefore, S.23 of the Act may not apply. But this Court being an established court can exercise the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the decision in Haneefa v. Subhalakshmi (1980 KLT 627) the question that arose for consideration was whether the District Court which then was the revisional court under S.20 of the Act, has jurisdiction to restore a revision petition dismissed for default. In considering the same this court held:

"S.23 of the Act by which only certain provisions of the C.P.C. are made applicable, has reference only to the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority. Regarding the powers of the revisional court under the Act, namely the District Court and in some cases the High Court, such powers are not enunciated in the Act, because even otherwise they have got the necessary powers being established courts under the Code of Civil Procedure".

The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the revisional court under S.20 of the Act of course is not the same jurisdiction of an appellate court. But the jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act is to satisfy as to the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceedings of the lower authorities. Therefore, though the jurisdiction exercised by the revisional authority is not identical with appellate jurisdiction, certainly it has got all powers which would be necessary for a meaningful and effective exercise of the jurisdiction to satisfy as to the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or judgment against which the revision is preferred. In the decision in Narayanan v. Kuttikrishnan (1973 KLT 182) the question that arose for consideration was, whether the revisional court, which then was the District Cou