The court or tribunal whose order is sought to be revised under Art.227 of the Constitution is not a necessary party to the proceeding before the High Court.

1. This case was originally filed as a civil revision petition to revise an order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur in A. A. No. 100 of 1971 passed on 28 41972. Subsequently by an order of this Court dated 10 11973 it has been converted as an Original" Petition under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. It is necessary to briefly state the facts of the case. The petitioners herein obtained the property concerned in this case pursuant to a final decree passed in a partition suit in O. S. No. 402 of 1938 in the Alathur Munsiff's Court. There was a Receiver appointed for all the suit properties in that case. The receiver was managing this property by auctioning the right to take its income from year to year. For the year 1134 M. E., it appears that the respondent purchased that right. In an auction conducted for the year 1135 the right was purchased by a third party from whom it was taken by the respondent, who conducted the cultivation in that year. It is seen from Ext B-1 dated 5-3-1960 that, consequent on the termination of the aforesaid arrangement, the Receiver, who had possession of the property, handed over the same to the first petitioner on behalf of the petitioners. But the respondent trespassed on the property on 10 5 1960. Thereupon the first petitioner instituted a suit O.S. 172 of 1960 in the Munsiff's Court, Alathur for recovery of the possession of the property with mesne profits. That suit was decreed by the trial court. Ext. B-3 dated 14 21964 is the judgment. There was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palghat. The appeal was dismissed; and Ext. B-4 dated 4171967 is the judgment of the appellate court. The first petitioner then applied for execution of the decree; and he took actual possession of the property from the respondent on 6111967. In the mean-while, the respondent had filed O. A. No. 382 of 1962 before the Land Tribunal, Palghat for fixation of fair rent for the property alleging that he was a lessee thereof. That was consistent with the case which he had pleaded in O. S.172 of 1960 above referred to. That application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal holding that the respondent was not a tenant. Subsequently in the light of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, (Act 35 of 1969), the respondent filed an application under S.13A of the Act for restoration of possession of the property stating that he would be a tenant as defined in the Amendment Act, that he was dispossessed after 1-4-1964, and that he was, therefore, entitled to restoration of possession. The petition was dismissed by the Land Tribunal, from whose order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur. The Appellate Authority held that the property was in the occupation of the respondent under a licence granted by the first petitioner as per Ext. A-1 dated 20 21959, that the respondent was thereafter dispossessed only after 1 41964, and that by virtue of the provisions in the Amendment Act 35 of 1969, the respondent would be a tenant entitled to restoration of possession of the property under S.13-A. It is this order that is sought to be set aside in this Original Petition.

3. The question for decision is whether, on the facts of the case, the respondent would be entitled to the benefits of sub-s. (1) of S.13-A of the Act. This Sub-section reads,

13A. Restoration of possession of persons dispossessed on or after 1st April, 1964. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, or in any contract, customer usage or in any judgment, decree or order of court, where any person has been dispossessed of the land in his occupation on or after the 1st day of April, 1964, such person shall, if he would have been a tenant under this Act as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, at the time of such dispossession, be entitled subject to the provisions of this section to restoration of possession of the land:

Provided that nothing in