The main legal point established in the judgment is that the word 'ordinarily' in the proviso to S.14 of the Act must be interpreted to mean that the revision must be preferred to the appellate court where appeals are usually or very often filed from the decrees of the Munsiff.

1. This matter has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single judge as he considered that the question involved in this case is of general importance which requires to be heard by a Bench of this Court. The question relates to the interpretation of the proviso to S.14 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the Act'), regarding proper forum for preferring a revision.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are these: An order of eviction has been passed by a Rent Control Court, which was confirmed in appeal. After the death of the landlord, one of his sons (the present respondent) filed an execution petition on behalf of himself and also as the power of attorney-holder of his brother, being the legal representatives of their deceased father. Without issuing any notice to the tenant (judgment-debtor) the Munsiff has ordered delivery on 8-1-1979 and the Amin reported that the delivery was effected on 8-1-1979. The judgment-debtor had challenged the said order for delivery and also the report of the Amin. He filed E.A. No. 64 of 1979 before the Munsiff 's Court for setting aside the delivery kychit holding that the delivery has not been actually effected. Alternatively he prayed for a re-delivery, in case the delivery is found to have been validly effected. The Munsiff has allowed the said E. A. and set aside delivery and also the delivery kychit. He ordered the E. P. to be re-admitted to the file. Against the said order of the Munsiff, an application was filed by the present respondent before the Sub Court, Kottarakara for revision under S.14 of the Act. The said revision was allowed by the Sub Judge as per his order dated 25-6-1980. It is that order which is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Sub Judge, Kottarakka has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under S.14 of the Act.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition cannot be maintained at all without joining the other legal representative of the original decree-holder. While admitting the fact that this respondent and the judgment debtor alone were the parties in the revision petition filed before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara, the learned counsel has contended that inasmuch as the order impugned is one of dismissing the E. A. No. 64 of 1979 the advantage of that order has enured to the benefit of his co-legal representative also and hence a reversal of that order cannot be made without him on the party array. The decisions cited by him are Gouri Amma v. Gopalakrishna Panicker (1966 KLT. 715), Gopala Pillai v. Chellappan Pillai (1966 KLT. 1154) and Ammukutty Amma v. Madhavi Amma (1971 KLT. 50). In those decisions the maintainability of the appeals without all the parties in whose favour the decree appealed against stands were found against. Those decisions cannot help the respondent herein, for, the present one is not an appeal, but only an application to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Dismissal of a revision on the technical ground of non joinder of a necessary party is not to be resorted to, since the result of an exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is binding on all concerned. At the most, this Court may have to issue notice to the other legal representative also in this revision. But in this case the said person cannot have any possible grievance because in the E. P. signed by the respondent he claims that he is acting on his own as also on behalf of his brother who had given him a power of attorney to represent biro in this execution proceedings. Therefore, we are not persuaded to dismiss this revision merely on the ground that the other legal representative of the landlord is not made a formal party in this petition.

5. While coming to the main question to be decided it is necessary to quote below the pr