The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the appeal was allowed on that ground.

1. This appeal by special leave from the decision of a learned single judge of the High Court of Kerala is disposed of on a short question of law.

2. The appellant is a tenant. The High Court had reversed the concurrent findings and the decisions of three courts below it and ordered eviction of the appellant.

3. The dispute relates to a portion of the ground floor of a three-storeyed building situated in one of the busiest commercial areas, Pazhavangadi of the city of Trivandrum, where the appellant bad been conducting a tea shop by name 'Sourashtra Hotel'. In the adjacent rooms on the ground floor, the landlord was conducting a business in textiles namely'Sarada Textiles'. The tenancy began on 12th June, 1965. The tenancy was taken by the husband of the appellant. The rent was Rs. 140/- per month. The husband of the appellant died. Thereafter the appellant had been conducting the business from there.

4. On or about 15th April, 1976, the respondent purchased a three storeyed building. The petition schedule premises is a portion of the ground floor of the said three storeyed building. It is the case of the appellant that there were seven rooms on the first floor of the said building out of which four were in the possession of the respondent and three rented out as aforesaid. The premises on the second floor were used by the respondent-landlord as a lodge. On 9th April, 1977, the respondent filed an application under S.17 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act) for permission to convert the non-residential building to a residential building. On 30th November, 1977, the Accommodation Controller rejected the said application.

5. On 2nd June 1978, the respondent filed the petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide need of the premises in question for bis residence. Arrears of rent was also one of the grounds taken against the appellant. The tenant duly filed his objection. On 31st October, 1978, the Rent Control Court dismissed the respondent-landlord's petition for eviction. It was found that the landlord had other buildings in his own possession and therefore, no order of eviction could be passed by virtue of the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority on or about 2nd July, 1979 dismissed the respondent-landlord's appeal.

6. On 28th March, 1980, the revision petition filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the District Court.

7. The High Court was moved by the respondent-landlord under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. The husband of the appellant died on 8th May, 1985. She was therefore impleaded as the legal representative and she is conducting the business since the death of her husband.

9. By the order dated 20th August, 1985, the High Court by its impugned order has set aside all the orders of the courts below. The tenant, the appellant herein has come up in appeal to this Court under Art.136 of the Constitution.

10. Several questions were posed before us in this case, Inter alia, (i) whether the revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies to the High Court from a revision order passed under S.20 of the said Act? (ii) whether the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under S.115 in setting aside the judgments and orders of the Courts below in ordering eviction of the appellant from the premises in question reversing the findings of facts? (iii) whether eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building could be ordered for the user of the building for residence of the landlord, if the Accommodation Controller had refused permission under S.17 of the Act to convert the building from non-residential to residential? (iv) where the Accommodation Controller refused the permission to convert the building from non-residential to residential, does the claim to the building by the landlord for a residential purpose become illegal and not recognised by law and whether the claim of the landlord can