The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers of the Rent Control Appellate Authority are limited to those expressly conferred under the statute, and the authority does not have the inherent power to remand a proceeding to the Rent Controller Court.

1. The short point that arises for decision in this writ petition is as to whether the view taken by the learned District Judge that the Rent Control Appellate Authority, functioning under the provisions of Kerala Act 16/1959, has no power to remand a proceeding to the Bent Controller Court, is correct or not.

2. The question arises this way: The landlord, who is the respondent before me, filed an application under S.9[3] [a] [i] of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Order, 1950 for eviction of the tenant, the writ petitioner before me, on the ground that he must get possession of the building in question, as he proposes to have it reconstructed.

3. S.9 [1] of the Order is to the effect that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of that clause.

S. 9 [3] [a] is to the effect that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession and S.9 [3] [a] [i] is to the effect that he may apply for being put in possession 'where the building is proposed to be reconstructed.'

4. The Rent Controller in this case, originally ordered eviction as evidenced by Ext. P-1 and the tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. When the appeal was pending before the latter, Ordinance No. 3 of 1959 came into force namely, the Kerala Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Ordinance, 1959. It was promulgated by the Governor on 16th January 1959, and was published in the State Gazette on 17th January 1959. S.11 of the Ordinance dealt with eviction of tenants. Here again, sub-section [i] of S.11 was to the effect that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of that section. Sub-section [4] of S.11 gave a right to a landlord to apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building under the circumstances mentioned in clauses [i] to [iv]. In particular, Cl. [iv] of Sub-section [4] of S.11 was to the effect:

"if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the building urgently and if he satisfies the Court that the building is in a precarious state and that he has the plan and licence, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction."

A reading of this clause will show that the right of a landlord to get possession of a building for purposes of reconstruction is hedged in by several conditions mentioned under this sub-clause.

5. There is no controversy that the Act that followed the Ordinance namely, the Kerala Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1959 - Act 16/1959, under the identical provision namely, S.11 [4] [iv] gives the same right to a landlord to get eviction of a building for reconstruction. But there is a slight difference in the actual wording as contained in the relevant clause in the Act. Whereas under the Ordinance there was also a condition that the landlord should satisfy the court that the building is in a precarious state, that condition or necessity has been deleted in the corresponding provision under the Act namely, clause [iv] of sub-section [4] of S.11 of Kerala Act 16/1959.

6. There is also another minor difference in that the Ordinance required the landlord to satisfy the court that the repairs are to be done urgently also.

7. When the Ordinance was passed, it is seen that the Appellate Authority understood that both parties were requesting him to send back the matter to the Rent Controller, that is, more or less remand the matter for rehearing and disposal in the light of the requirements mentioned in the Ordinance. Therefore, under Ext P-2, the Appellate Authority passed an order of remand. The landlord moved the Appellate Authority for reviewing the order of remand on the ground that he has not agreed or given his consent for the remand. The Appellate Authorit