The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the Revisional Authority's jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act and the principles for the appreciation of evidence, emphasizing that the Revisional Court should only interfere with findings of fact if they are perverse or unreasonable.

Varghese Kalliath, J.

1. Petitioner in this Original Petition is a landlord of a building, which is in the occupation of the 4th respondent. Petitioner filed an application under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for short 'the Act' for eviction of the 4th respondent herein.

2. Petitioner raised grounds under S.11(2), 11(4) (i), 11(4) (iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act for eviction of the 4th respondent. Petitioner contended that the 4th respondent - tenant subleased the building to the 5th respondent without, his consent and so the 4th respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of subletting without consent.

3. It is not necessary for the disposal of this case the details regarding the other grounds raised by the petitioner. Those grounds are not active and alive now. Petitioner will be satisfied if this Court allows eviction on the ground of subletting.

4. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under the statute allowed the application on all grounds except under S.11(2) of the Act - arrears of rent. The 4th respondent herein filed a revision under S.20 of the Act before the Revisional Authority - the District Court. The Revisional Authority did not agree with the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the question of subletting and found that the petitioner did not establish the case of subletting. In regard to other grounds except S.11(2) of the Act, the Revisional Court found that there was no proper consideration by the Appellate Authority and so remitted the case for fresh consideration by the Appellate Court. As regards the remittal for consideration on all other grounds, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not much concerned. Petitioner is only aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court reversing the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the question of subletting. This Original Petition is now essentially concerned with the question of subletting. Further, counsel submitted that if this Court holds that the finding on the question of subletting recorded is restored, petitioner will be entitled to get eviction and in that case the findings on other grounds are not of any material consequence.

5. Two reasons were emphatically urged before me for quashing the order of the Revisional Authority by counsel for the petitioner. They are, (1) The Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the E concurrent finding of fact regarding subletting and (2) There are sufficient reasons for holding that the 4th respondent has subleased the building to the 5th respondent and so the finding of the Revisional Authority is fundamentally wrong on facts also.

6. Learned counsel referred me to several decisions dealing with the limited scope of the jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority under the Act. It was contended that the Revisional Authority did not keep in mind the fact that the Revisional Authority has got only a limited jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act. S.20 of the Act runs thus: -

"20. Revision (1) 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 proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

(2) The cost of and incident to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under sub-s.(1) shall be in its discretion."

The Supreme Court as well as this Court had occasions to delineate the width, content and scope of the jurisdiction conferred on the Revisional Authority by the legislature under S.20 of the Act.

7. Learned counsel also referred me to the decisions relating to similar provisions containe