The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers of revision under S.115 are excluded when the appellate authority empowered under S.18 is a Subordinate Judge.

1. This is a petition under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The order sought to be revised is the order of the District Court of Kottayam in O.P. No. 54 of 1960.

2. The petitioner was ordered to be evicted by the Rent Control Court of Kottayam in B.R.C. No. 19 of 1957 by an order dated 16-9-1958. He filed an appeal from that order before the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam, C.M.A. No. 29 of 1958, and then an application for revision before the District Court of Kottayam, B.R.C Revision No.1 of 1959. The appeal was dismissed on 20-12-1958 and the application for revision on 31-3-1959.

3. On 3-4-1959 the petitioner deposited the arrears of rent with interest and costs in the Rent Control Court and prayed that the order for eviction be vacated under S.11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. The prayer was allowed. The land-lord appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam, B.R.C. Appeal No. 3 of 1959 and succeeded in the appeal. The petitioner then filed O.P. No. 54 of 1960 before the District Court of Kottayam and sought a revision of the order of the Subordinate Judge in appeal. That petition was dismissed on 8-4-1960, and it is that order of dismissal that is sought to be revised by this petition before us.

4. S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as follows:

"The High Court may Call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such Subordinate Court appears

[a] to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

[b] to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

[c] to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."

5. It is not contended that the District Court in dealing with an application for revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959, is not a court subordinate to the High Court, and that S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not attracted on that account. The only contention is that the powers of revision under S.115 have been excluded in such cases as a result of S.18 (5) and 20 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. There is also no contention that if the powers under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure have as a matter of fact been excluded by the provisions above mentioned that exclusion is infructuous because of any provision of the Constitution.

6. Sub-section (5) of S.18 provides:

"The decision of the appellate authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the Rent Control Court shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law, except as provided in S.20"; and sub-section (1) of S.20:

"In cases where the appellate authority empowered under S.18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit."

We entertain no doubt that these provisions make it quite clear that the powers of the High Court in revision are confined to those cases where the appellate authority empowered under S.18 is not a Subordinate Judge. In this case the appellate authority was a Subordinate Judge, and it must follow that an application to this court for revision is not permissible.

7. In 1960 KLT. 895 Vaidialingam, J., appears to have taken a different view. He said:

'Before I go into the merits of the contentions of the learned counsel, I may also refer to a preliminary objection raised by Mr. T. S. Venkiteswara Iyer, learned counsel for the land-lord respondent that no revision under S.115 of th