Judgment :- Bhat, Ag. CJ. First-respondent, owner of the diluted premises filed eviction petition against second respondent herein and appellant alleging that premises had been let out to second respondent who had unlawfully sublet the same to the appellant and that provided a ground for eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The eviction petition was resisted by contending that even though second respondent was the original tenant, by later arrangement appellant got into possession with the consent of the landlord. The Rent Controller accepted this plea and dismissed the eviction petition. But that was reversed by the appellate court and the reversal confirmed by the revisional court, namely, District Court under S.20 of the Act. The alleged sub tenant challenged the proceedings before this court, namely under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition having been dismissed by the learned single judge though conditionally granting six months time to vacate, this appeal is filed. 2. We asked learned counsel for the appellant to explain how an appeal is maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that original petition was filed before the learned single judge not only tinder Article 227 but also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that when shelter is sought under both the Articles since Article 226 has wider import than Article 227 it must be taken that relief was actually claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of. India in which case the impugned judgment would be appealable. 4. District Court under S.2() of the Act is a civil court in the hierarchy of courts. This has been laid down by a Division bench of this court in Anandan v. Soumini (1991 (1) KLT 53). The order of the District court being' the decision of a civil court cannot be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, See: Nallakoya v. Administrator, Union Territories of Laccadives etc. (1968 K.L.T. 60) followed inA.V.r;immathv.Chandran(]<)X9(') K.L.T. 473). Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision hi in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai (AIR 1956 S.C.1272). (1968 K.L.T. 60) followed inA.V.r;immathv.Chandran(]<)X9(') K.L.T. 473). Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision hi in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai (AIR 1956 S.C.1272). Thai ease related to a decision by Tahsildar under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha region) Act, 1958 against which an appeal was preferred before the Sub Divisional Officer aim ultimately, the matter went in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It was that decision which was challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court took the view that the petition would be maintainable not only under Article 227 but also under Article 226 of I he Constitution of India and since the latter has wider import the case must be deemed to have been dealt with under Article 226 in which case an appeal would lie. The decision did not deal with the case of a challenge against the order of a civil court such as District Com I. There can therefore be no doubt that decision of a District Court under S.20 of the Act cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though original petition is described as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India since writ petition would not lie under Article 226, it can betaken lobe only a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In Umaji Keshao Meshram's case (AIR 1986 S.C.1272) the Supreme Court explained the difference between a proceeding under Article 226 and the one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A proceeding under Article 226 is an original proceeding and when it concerns civil rights, it is an original civil proceeding and an appeal would lie provided the concerned status or charter provides for such an appeal. A proceeding under Article 227, on I he other hand, is not an original proceeding and an intra¬court appeal does not lie against the decision of a learned single judge given in a petition under Article 227. The present is a case governed by the provisions of the Kerala High Court Act. S.5 of the Act provides for appeals from judgments or orders of single judge. S.5 states that an appeal shall lie to a Bench of two judges from certain judgments . or orders of single judges. The present is a case governed by the provisions of the Kerala High Court Act. S.5 of the Act provides for appeals from judgments or orders of single judge. S.5 states that an appeal shall lie to a Bench of two judges from certain judgments . or orders of single judges. Clause (i) lakes in judgment or order of a single judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction. Clause (ii) deals with judgment in the case of appellate jurisdiction in respect of decree or order made i n I he exercise of original j jurisdiction by a subordinate court. Clause (iii) deals with judgment of a single judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a subordinate court, if the judge who passed such judgment certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal. According to learned counsel for the appellant, clause (i) is attracted in the instance case. The question therefore is whether the impugned judgment of the learned single judge, which is a judgment under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a judgment in I he exercise of original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has clearly held that a proceeding under Article 227 is not an original proceeding. It is a proceeding which invokes the jurisdiction of supervisory or superintendence and cannot be treated as original jurisdiction. Hence it is clear that the proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, such as the one in the instant case is, not an original proceeding and no appeal lies against such a judgment under S.5 of the Kerala High Court Act 6. We hold that the appeal is not maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed.