The main legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of converting a revision into an appeal under the Civil Procedure Code and the liability of an obstruction to be removed under 0.21 R.98 CPC.

1. This Second Appeal is against the appellate order of the District Court, Kozhikode directing the removal of obstruction by the appellant against the execution of the order of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode in O.P.R.C. No. 151 of 1978. A building belonging to the decree-holder was allotted to the judgment debtor Kalayani an employee of the Telegraph Department as per orders of the Accommodation Controller and she occupied the building in 1972. She had her residence in the building with family, and her husband Ramunni was running a tailoring institute by name Ambedkar Technical Institute in the same building. In February 1977 the appellant obtained possession of the building from Ramunni and he is conducting the Technical Institute and yoga treatment centre there. The respondent landlord instituted 0 P.R.C. No. 111 of 1978 before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode against the tenant

Kalyani for her eviction under sub-sections (2), (3), and 4 (ii), (iii) and (v) of S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. Eviction was ordered by the Rent Control Court on 3-10-1978 under sub-sections (3), (4) (iii) and (4) (v) of S.11 of the Act finding that the landlord required the building bonafide for his own occupation, that the tenant had another building in her possession in the same city reasonably sufficient for her occupation and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building continuously fora period over six months without reasonable cause. An appeal by the tenant Kalyani was dismissed by the appellate authority on 24-3-1981 confirming the order for eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. When the landlord sought delivery of possession as per E. P. No. 92 of 1981, he was resisted by the appellant whereupon he filed an application E. A. No. 282 of 1981 under 0.21 R.97 CPC. for delivery of the building after removal of the obstruction by the appellant. The execution court dismissed the application, as in its view the order cannot be executed against the appellant who is not a party to the proceedings before the Rent Control Court. Against this the landlord decree-holder filed R. C. R. P. No. 151 of 1981 before the District Court under the proviso to S.14 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. When the revisions came up for hearing a contention was raised at the instance of the obstructor that the revision is not maintainable and the remedy of the decree-holder is only an appeal under the amended provisions of R.103 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the decisions of this Court in Kuruvila v. Kesavan reported in 1980 KLT. 364. The decree-holder thereupon filed I. A. No. 1963 of 1982 for permission to convert the revision into an appeal under 0.21 R.103 CPC. This application was allowed and the case was re-numbered as A. S. No. 240 of 1982. The learned District judge heard the appeal on merits and reversing the decision of the execution court ordered delivery of the building after removal of resistance by the obstructor.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant Sri. M. C. Sen submits that the court below is wrong in permitting a revision under the proviso to S.14 of the Act to be converted into an appeal under 0.21 R.103 CPC.,and in support of the proposition relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad (1980 (2) SCWR.I:AIR.1980 SC. 892). The two questions that arose in that case for decision by the Supreme Court are formulated in Para.1 of the judgment as follows:

1. Whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction under S.115, Code of Civil Procedure in respect of an order of the District Court under S.115 disposing of a revision petition?

2. Whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction under S.115 against an order of the District Court under S.25, Provincial Small Causes Act disposing of a revision petition?"

3. The first question arose on account of the bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction between the High