The judgment establishes the principle that decisions of tribunals with limited jurisdiction, such as Rent Control Authorities, can be challenged in court, and the existence of certain facts necessary for the tribunal's jurisdiction can be questioned.

1. This revision petition raises the oft discussed question whether the jurisdiction conferred on the authorities by a special enactment confers exclusive jurisdiction on them ousting the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The statute concerned is admitted by the parties to be Act XVI of 1959. The revision petitioner in this case, the landlord of the premises, was successful in getting an order for eviction of the counter-petitioner from the said premises pursuant to proceedings instituted under the above Act. The counter-petitioner contended before the statutory authorities that there is no letting out of any 'building' as envisaged by the statute. It was held by the revisional authority that the letting in the case was of a 'building', and reversing the decision of the appellate authority, Ext. P3, the revisional authority directed eviction. The order is Ext. P4. The suit has been filed by the counter-petitioner for a declaration that the orders of the appellate authority, Ext. P3, and that of the revisional authority, Ext. P4, are null and void and for the issue of an injunction restraining the revision petitioner from trying to get possession of the building.

2. Certain preliminary objections were raised to the maintainability of the suit and the issues 1, 3 (c) and 4 which are extracted below have been tried as preliminary issues in the case.

"Issue No. 1. Whether the suit is maintainable ?

"3 (c). Are the orders in R.C.P. 29 of 1957 and R.C.R.P. 4 of 1959 nullities for the reasons mentioned in para 6 of the plaint? Are they mere administrative orders and subject to judicial review by this Court? Has this court jurisdiction to review these orders?

"4. Whether this suit is barred by res judicata?"

3. The court below has held in favour of the maintainability of the suit and has decided the above issues in favour of the counter-petitioner.

4. Before dealing with the point to be decided in this revision petition, it is necessary to say that there are observations in the order on the merits of the question as to whether the letting related to a 'building' or not. These observations are unnecessary for deciding issues 1, 3 (c) and 4 and I make it clear that the further proceedings in the case must be without any reference to any such observations contained in the order under revision.

5. The point to be decided is whether in view of S.18 (5) the decision reached by the revisional authority by Ext. P4 is conclusive and whether it is open to the counter-petitioner to challenge that decision by way of a suit. The matter is not free from difficulty. A number of cases have been cited before me, but I consider it unnecessary to refer to all those cases. The Supreme Court in Raj Brij Raj Krishna v. Messrs.

S.K. Shaw and Brothers (AIR. 1951 SC. 115) has quoted with approval a passage from the decision in The Queen v. Commissioner for Special Purposes of the Income-tax (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 313 at 319 which reads:

"When an inferior court or tribunal or body, which has to exercise the power of deciding facts, is first established by Act of Parliament, the legislature has to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body. It may in effect say that, if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction to do such things, but not otherwise. There it is not for them conclusively to decide whether that state of facts exists, and, if they exercise the jurisdiction without its existence, what they do may be questioned, and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction. But there is another state of things which may exist. The legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, on finding that it does exist, to proceed further or do something more. When the legislature are establishing such a tribunal or bod