The judgment establishes the principle that the jurisdiction of a new District Court does not automatically extend to cases from the previous jurisdiction, and that the powers of the Rent Control Court are not limited by the provisions of the Act.

1. A tenant filed an application for review of the order passed by District Court in revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). That application was dismissed by the District Court. Hence the petitioner has come to this Court invoking jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution.

2. Facts are these: A landlord filed an application before the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction of his tenant on different grounds, but the only ground now survives is bona fide need to reconstruct the building as per S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. Though the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority did not favour the landlord, he got an order from the District Court, Tellicherry in exercise of the power of revision. The order of the District Court is dated 4-2-1986. The tenant challenged the order in this Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). But this Court dismissed his application in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court which held that a second revision is not maintainable. (Vide Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, 1987 (1) KLT 53). He then filed an Original Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the District Court. The Original Petition was dismissed in limine Subsequently, the tenant learnt that the licence obtained by the landlord for constructing a new building ceased to be effective (since the period of its validity expired as early as 14-12-1982). He filed an application under 0.47. R.1 of the Code before the new District Court of Kasaragod. The tenant urged that the order of eviction was vitiated by an apparent error in that the Court was not told that the landlord did not have a valid licence to construct a new building. He chose to file the said application before the District Court, Kasaragod, since the village in which the building is situate now falls within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Kasaragod. The District Court dismissed the application by Ext. P2 order dated 5-8-1987. It is the legality of the said order which is challenged now. The application for review was dismissed mainly on three grounds, (a) District Court, Kasaragod does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for review of the order passed by the District Court, Tellicherry, (b) The application for review is barred by limitation, as the same was filed only seventeen months after the passing of the order of eviction, (c) There is lack of bona fides in filing the application since the tenant did not mention about the expiry of the licence period either when he filed second revision under S.115 of the Code or when he filed the earlier Original Petition in this Court.

3. On 4-2-1986 when the District Court, Tellicherry gassed an order of eviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the new District Court of Kasaragod was not in existence. It was only on 26-3-1986 (as per GO (Ms) 31/86/Home dated 13-2-1986) that the District Court, Kasaragod, came into being. Its territorial jurisdiction was defined by GO (Ms) 527/86 dated 26-3-1986. All the villages now filling within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the new District Court were earlier within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Tellicherry.

4. Under 0.47 R.1 of the Code an application for review shall be filed before "the court which passed the decree or made the order." District Court, Kasaragod, is admittedly not the court which passed the order. Bat learned counsel contended that new District Court gets jurisdiction to entertain the application for review by virtue of S.150 of the Code. That Section reads thus:

"Save as otherwise provided, where the business of any Court is transferred to any other Court, the Court to which the business is so transferred shall have the same powers and shall perform the same duties as those respectively conferred and imposed by or under this Code upon the Court from which the