The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the rent control appellate authority to proceed with the appeal despite the pendency of another appeal before the appellate authority, Land Reforms Kozhikode.

Usha, J.

This Petition is at the instance of the petitioner in I.A. 2709/93 in RCA. 45/91 seeking stay of the proceedings in the appeal pending before the rent control appellate authority, pending decision on the appeal filed by the petitioner before land reforms appellate authority, Kozhikode. R.C.P. 5/86 was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Petitioner herein contended that he is a kudikidappukaran in the schedule building and therefore not liable to be evicted. The question was referred to the Land Tribunal as provided u/s.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Land Tribunal answered the reference against the tenant. Rent Control Court accepted the finding of the Land Tribunal and allowed the petition for eviction. Aggrieved by the above, tenant filed RCA No. 45/91.

2. It is seen that the tenant had earlier filed O.A. 112/03 before the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode which was also heard along with the reference and disposed of by common order dt. 9-10-1990. Tenant has filed appeal before the appellate authority, land reforms, Kozhikode against the order in O.A. 112/83 and the appeal is pending.

3. Rent Control appellate authority rejected petitioner's petition for stay of the proceedings in the appeal holding that once the finding of the land tribunal on a reference made u/s.125(3) is incorporated in the order of the rent control court, it is the appellate authority which has to hear the appeal from that order. It cannot be contended that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal on the ground that the tenant has filed an appeal before the appellate authority, Land Reforms Kozhikode from the order in O.A. 112/83.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it is -only the appellate authority, land reforms which can consider an appeal from O.A. 112/83 rent control appellate authority should have stayed the proceedings in R.C.A.45/91. We find no merit in this contention. Since the finding of the Land Tribunal has been incorporated in the order of the rent control court and R.C.A. 45/91 is an appeal from the order passed by the rent control authority, we are of the view that the rent control appellate authority has got jurisdiction to proceed with R.C.A. 45/91 in spite of the pendency of the appeal by the petitioner against the order in O.A.I 12/83. The position is clear from the provisions contained under sub-section 6 of Section 125 read with sub-section 8.

In the light of the above discussion, the revision petition fails and it stands dismissed.