The power of the Revisional Authority to collect evidence is limited, and the court's power of superintendence under Article 227 should be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases.

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 proceeding. In revision. District Judge issued a commission on the motion of the landlord to ascertain whether the first floor could have been used for residential purpose. Commission report in the District Court was marked as Ext. C1. Learned District judge set aside- the judgment of the appellate authority and restored the order passed by the Rent Control Court holding that the landlord bona fide needs this building for his residential use. Factors which considerably weighed with the District Judge are that the landlord has been residing in rented buildings and that the building involved in this case is the only building owned by him; and that only slight modifications or additions would be sufficient to make this building residentable. District Judge found that there is uncontroverted evidence to show that first floor of the building as such could not be used for residential purpose.

3. This original petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. in challenge of the aforesaid order of the District Court.

4. Subsequent to the reference order passed by Sankaran Nair. J. and before we heard arguments in this original petition. two other division benches of this court have considered the decision in Karthiyani's case (1986 KLT 81). In one of them (Anandan v. Soumini. (1991 (1) KLT 53)) Bhat. J. (as he then was) and Ramakrishnan. J. did not approve the ratio in Karthiyani's case. But the other Division Bench (Varghese Kalliath and Manoharan. JJ.) in Gouthaman v. Lohithakshan (1992 (1) KLT 32) has affirmed the ratio laid down in Karthiyani's case. However. it has to be pointed out that the earlier Division Bench decision in Anandan's case was not referred to in the later decision (Gouthaman's case) (presumably because the decision would not have been brought to the notice of their lordships in Gouthaman's case).

5. At the first blush. we thought that we should refer this case to a Full Bench in view of the apparent divergence of opinions expressed by two different division benches of this court. Shri. N. Viswanatha Iyer. counsel for the petitioner urged before us that there is no need to refer this case to a larger bench since the observations made by the Division Bench in Anandan's case (cited supra) regarding the ratio in Karthiyani's case are only obiter dicta and hence the subsequent division bench decision (Gouthaman's case) holds the field.

6. The Division Bench in Anandan's case (cited supra) was called upon to consider the question whether Revisional Authority under S.20 of the Rent Control Act has jurisdiction to permit amendment of the pleadings. When the revision was pending before the District Court in that case an application was moved for incorporating a plea that landlord's daughter is a dependent on him and that she had no other house