Thomas, J.

This original petition has been referred to a division bench by Sankaran Nair J. as the learned judge doubted the correctness of the decision in Karthiyani v. Venkitachala Iyer (1986 KLT 81). The ratio of the said decision is that a Revisional Authority under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Rent Control act) has no power to collect evidence except for the limited purpose of enabling it to effectively exercise its revisional function.

2. Facts of this case are simple. Petitioner is the tenant of a building which is on the ground floor of an edifice. Landlord filed an application for eviction on the ground that he needs the building for his own residential use. Rent Control Court upheld the ground and ordered eviction. But. appellate authority reversed the rending mainly for two reasons. First is that the building (which is used by the tenant as a godown) is a non-residential one situate in a commercial area. Second is that the landlord has no bona fides in claiming it for his residential use since he did not occupy the first floor of the building which fell vacant in 1974. three years before institution of this proceedin