Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the defendant in O. S. 23 of 1950 on the file of the Anjikaimal District Court. The first respondent is the plaintiff therein. The suit was for eviction of a building (a godown) on foot of a lease which is denied by the petitioner. The plaintiff had approached the Rent Controller with a prayer for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. In these proceedings the petitioner resisted the claim and repudiated the title of the landlord. The above suit was filed subsequently and before the Rent Controller considered the question of title which was raised under the proviso to Section 9 of the Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XXIV of 1124 under which the petition before the Rent Controller was presented. When the title of the landlord is disputed by the tenant, the Rent Controller is directed to investigate the matter and should he reach the conclusion that the denial of title is malafide, he may continue the proceedings. If, on the other hand he comes to the conclusion that the repudiation of the landlord's title is bonafide, then the Controller is directed to record that fact and the landlord would be entitled to resort to the civil court for relief by way of eviction. Based upon this proviso, the petitioner contended in the court below that be fore the Rent Controller records a finding to the effect that the claim of the tenant repudiating the title of the landlord is bonafide, it is beyond the competence of the landlord to start proceedings in the civil court. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides that: "The Courts shall [subject to the provisions herein contained] have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred." was relied upon to bar the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matter of entertainment of this suit. It has been held that Act XXIV of 1124 (Cochin) does not preclude the filing of a suit by the landlord in the Civil Court. He is entitled to file a suit and get a decree. Only the decree cannot be executed except after resort to and getting an order from the Rent Controller. The proviso to section 9 does not prohibit the civil court from entertaining such a suit. He is entitled to file a suit and get a decree. Only the decree cannot be executed except after resort to and getting an order from the Rent Controller. The proviso to section 9 does not prohibit the civil court from entertaining such a suit. It on the other hand operates to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller by limiting his jurisdiction to cases where, though the title of the land-lord is repudiated that repudiation is to be found by the Rent Controller to be malafide. It is to this limited extent above indicated that the Rent Controller has jurisdiction. That part of the proviso relating to the filing of a suit by the landlord in a civil court rather than prohibiting the civil court from entertaining the suit is one limiting the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The jurisdiction of the civil court always exists and exists until it is taken away expressly by a statute. In my judgment, the proviso to section 9 of the Act XXIV of 1124 does not operate to deprive the civil court of its jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Assuming the proviso to section 9 has the operation which is contended for, the question whether on account of that proviso, the jurisdiction of the civil court is or is not excluded was a question which the civil court had to consider when it was raised before it. It was actually raised and a decision on the question was invited by both the parties. A court whose jurisdiction is questioned has jurisdiction to decide its own jurisdiction. 3. The order passed by the District Judge against the petitioner and in favour of the civil court's jurisdiction may perhaps be wrong but it is nevertheless an order passed with and within jurisdiction. The mere fact that an order passed with jurisdiction happens to be erroneous in law or fact is no ground for interfering with it in an application for a writ. There is no usurpation of jurisdiction in this case nor is there any exceeding of jurisdiction. It is also not contended that there is any error apparent on the face of the record to justify interference by this court. 4. There is no usurpation of jurisdiction in this case nor is there any exceeding of jurisdiction. It is also not contended that there is any error apparent on the face of the record to justify interference by this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is wider than its jurisdiction under Section 115, C. P. C. and that the right can be exercised and the error committed by the District Court in finding in favour of its own jurisdiction corrected in this O. P. Reliance was placed upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 37 C. W. N. 201. It appears to me, that decision far from supporting the position for which it was relied upon, shows that when there is no absence or excess of jurisdiction and the complaint relates only to the error in the matter of exercise of the jurisdiction and there is no irregularity in procedure or any error apparent on the face of the record, then the powers of superintendence under Art. 227 of the Constitution which corresponds to Section 197 of the Government of India Act, 1935, should not be exercised. In that particular case there were circumstances justifying interference and so they interfered. No such circumstance exists in this case and I consider that there is no case for calling upon the respondent to answer. I therefore, dismiss this petition. Dismissed.