The revisional Court's jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act is wider than that under S.115 CPC, allowing it to consider evidence and examine the propriety of the order, but it cannot substitute its conclusion when the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority is reasonable.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. R. C. P. No. 273 of 1972 was filed against him for eviction on three grounds. The petition was dismissed. In appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. However, in revision the District Judge, Tellicherry, ordered eviction under S.11 (8) of the Act. This revision petition challenges the said order.

2. Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revisional Court had, in reversing the orders of the appellate authority and the Rent Control Court exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it under S.20 of the Act. It was further contended that the order was bad since all the ingredients necessary for ordering eviction under S. H (8) were not proved by the landlord. A new contention was raised before me that the building sought to be evicted is one separate building as defined in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in a row of 7 rooms and it cannot be said that the building in question is a part of the building occupied by the landlord. I shall examine these questions separately.

3. The first respondent is described as the "puthravakasa tavazhi karnavahi" and the 2nd respondent is her son, whose occupation is described as I"hSw The application was originally filed under S.11 (2) (a), (b) and (3) of the Act. Subsequently, as per R.C.I A. 191 of 1973, amendment of the petition was allowed and S 11 (8). was also included in the petition as one of the grounds. The amendment was carried out on 7 919731 felt it necessary to refer to this material, available from the petition, since the only surviving ground which was agitated before the revisional Court and before me is the ground under S.11(8) of the Act.

4. In Para.2 of the petition, it is stated that the building belongs to a tavazhi and the first respondent is filing the application on behalf of the tavazhi. The bona fide need is stated in Para.3 as follows:

The relevant prayer is, prayer (a), which reads as follows.

It is, therefore, clear that the petition was filed on behalf of the tavazhi and eviction was sought for the 2nd respondent to stock his things connected with the developing trade. The payer is eviction for the petitioners.

5. The Rent Control Court held that eviction cannot be ordered under S.11 (2) (a) and (b) or under S.11 (3). Under S 11 (8) the Rent Control Court found that there was no evidence as to the quantity of cement which pw.1 was getting which would entitle him to get eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. Since there was no satisfactory evidence regarding the necessity for additional accommodation, the Rent Control Court held against the landlord under S.11 (8) also.

6. The appellate authority agreed with the Rent Control Court on all grounds and dismissed the appeal. Before the Revisional Court, the only point argued was the ground under S.11 (8). The Revisional Court held that the ingredients of S.11 (8) were made out and that the respondents were entitled to eviction.

7. The first question that has to be considered in this revision is, the scone of the revisional jurisdiction of the District Court under S 20 of the Act Conceding that the revisional jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act was wider than the revisional jurisdiction under S.115 CPC. the petitioner's counsel contended that the findings of fact entered by the authorities below could be upset by the revisional Court only if they are perverse or so shockingly unreasonable that no Tribunal would arrive at such a conclusion. Counsel for the respondent would, on the other hand, contend that the revisional jurisdiction of the District Court is so wide that even the concurrent findings of fact could be set aside by the revisional Court.

8. S.20 enables the District Court to call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such