O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased original tenant in BRC(OP) No.10 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Karunagappally. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondents-landlords seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule shop room under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In that Rent Control Petition, the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order on 14.03.2019. 2. The tenant filed I.A.No.750 of 2019 before the Rent Control Court invoking the provisions under Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order to set aside the exparte order of eviction dated 14.03.2019. That application was opposed by the landlords by filing objection. Thereafter, considering the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court, by order dated 22.08.2019 dismissed I.A.No.750 of 2019 in BRC(OP) No.10 of 2015.

3. The revision petitioners filed R.C.A.No.33 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-VI), Kollam challenging the order dated 22.08.2019 of the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.750 of 2019, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 24.03.2022, confirming the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.750 of 2019. Thereafter, the petitioners has approached this Court in this Rent Control Revision invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act, challenging the judgment dated 24.03.2022 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.33 of 2019 and also the order of the Rent Control Court dated 22.08.2019 in I.A.No.750 of 2019 in BRC(OP) No.10 of 2015.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-landlords.

5. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted on the judgment/orders of the authorities below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.

6. Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with revision. As per sub-section (1) of Section 20, in cases, where the appellate authority empowered under Section 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. As per sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the costs of and incident to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under sub-

section (1) shall be in its discretion.

7. In Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana [(1993) 1 SCC 499], the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 came up for consideration before the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court. While considering whether the High Court could have re-appreciated entire evidence, the Apex Court held that, even the wider language of Section 20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise, the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in re-appreciating the entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report. The High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional jurisdiction. Even by the presence of the word ‘propriety’ it cannot mean that there could be a re-appreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional court c