The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely invocation of revisional power and the need for reasonable and diligent approach in legal proceedings.

The fourth respondent landlord, filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from a building in his occupation, on the ground of bona fide need for reconstruction, under S. II (4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the Act). The petition was filed on 14-8-1969 prior to the commencement on 1-1-1970 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. According to the landlord, the petitioner-tenant bad been inducted into possession of the building on 15-7-1953 as per the rent deed Ext. Al. executed by the petitioner to the fourth respondent's mother.

2. The tenant-petitioner contended inter alia that he bad been put in possession of the building with 22 cents of adjacent property, that he had made improvements to the building in the first instance, and subsequently reconstructed it, and that therefore, it did not need reconstruction.

3. When the petition came on for trial, the petitioner remained ex parte. On the basis of the evidence adduced on the side of the landlord, the petition was allowed and eviction ordered. The petitioner was directed to put the fourth respondent-landlord in possession of the building for reconstruction under S. II (4) (iv) of the Act. The Rent Control Court however omitted to specify any time limit within which the reconstruction was to be done. The tenant filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. It was prima facie out of time and hence a petition for condonation of delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. This petition was dismissed on the ground that the Limitation Act was not applicable to proceedings before the Appellate Authority who bad therefore no jurisdiction to condone the delay, or to entertain the appeal filed out of time. The appeal was dismissed in consequence on July 17,1973. The matter rested there for ten years, seven months and twenty one days, after which the tenant filed a Revision Petition before the Revisional Court, namely, the District Court, Ernakulam under S.20 of the Act. That was on March 9,1984. The long delay according to the tenant, was not fatal in as much as S.20 enabled the Rvisional Court to entertain a revision "at any time", and therefore, the Revision Petition filed at this distance of time was liable to be entertained. This contention was accepted by the District Court, who entertained the, Revision Petition, and dealt with the matter on merits. On consideration of the relevant dates, the District Judge held that the tenant bad filed his appeal before the Appellate Authority in time, namely, on the thirtieth day of limitation (a finding with which I find myself unable to agree, having regard to the dates mentioned. However, I am not rendering any decision on this question as it was not a matter on which the parties joined issue before me). The tenant petitioner prayed for remanding the case with opportunity to adduce evidence -there being no evidence on record on his side as he had absented himself at the trial. The District Judge did not think it fit to accede to this request in view of the long lapse of time, and the facts disclosed. However, and since the Rent Control Court had omitted to fix any period of time for the recon-struction, the Revisional Court modified the order of eviction by directing the landlord to complete the reconstruction of the building within one year from the date on which be got possession thereof. Option was given to the tenant to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent, as provided in the third proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act.

4. The tenant-petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging inter alia, the order in revision passed by the District Court, Ernakulam and to quash it by the issue of a writ of certiorari. I may even at the outset state that this petition is not maintainable under Article 226 in as much as the Revisional Court functioning under S.20 of the