Judgment :- Manoharan, J. This is a petition to receive two documents as additional evidence. Respondent has filed counter affidavit. 2. Revision petition is by the respondents in R.C.P. 49 of 1986 against the judgment of the appellate authority reversing the order of the Rent Controller refusing eviction under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the act'). Petitioners denied the allegation of the respondent - landlord that he bona fide needs the petition schedule building for the occupation of his dependant son PW-2. Petitioners also maintained that the respondent is in possession of other shop rooms. The Rent Controller on the basis of Ext. A2 found that the land-lord is in possession of a shop room. The said finding was reversed by the appellate authority. 3. Petitioners aver that the two documents sought to be admitted in evidence would show that, as a matter of fact the landlord had obtained possession of the said room pursuant to the order in R.CP. 25/1984 and that the landlord instituted the said petition for eviction of the tenant of the eastern shop room and obtained delivery. Document No.1 produced along with petition is the copy of the order in R.C.P. 25 of 1984, and document No. 11 is the copy of the execution petition and the diary of the execution court. Document No.1 shows that, eviction was ordered under S.11(2)(b),11(3) and 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965 and the execution diary in document No. 11 shows delivery was recorded oil 24-7-1984. In view of these two documents, the petitioners state that the contention of the landlord respondent that he did not obtain possession of the eastern shop room is not true. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent to this petition, he has contended that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to admit the additional evidence, that the said shop room is in the possession of one Sadanandan, and that the said shop room is only a Charumuri which is not suitable for the grocery business for which the eviction of the petition schedule building is sought. 4. S.23 of the Act refers only to the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority. This court exercises revisional jurisdiction as per S.20 of the Act. Therefore, S.23 of the Act may not apply. 4. S.23 of the Act refers only to the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority. This court exercises revisional jurisdiction as per S.20 of the Act. Therefore, S.23 of the Act may not apply. But this Court being an established court can exercise the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the decision in Haneefa v. Subhalakshmi (1980 KLT 627) the question that arose for consideration was whether the District Court which then was the revisional court under S.20 of the Act, has jurisdiction to restore a revision petition dismissed for default. In considering the same this court held: "S.23 of the Act by which only certain provisions of the C.P.C. are made applicable, has reference only to the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority. Regarding the powers of the revisional court under the Act, namely the District Court and in some cases the High Court, such powers are not enunciated in the Act, because even otherwise they have got the necessary powers being established courts under the Code of Civil Procedure". The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the revisional court under S.20 of the Act of course is not the same jurisdiction of an appellate court. But the jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act is to satisfy as to the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceedings of the lower authorities. Therefore, though the jurisdiction exercised by the revisional authority is not identical with appellate jurisdiction, certainly it has got all powers which would be necessary for a meaningful and effective exercise of the jurisdiction to satisfy as to the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or judgment against which the revision is preferred. In the decision in Narayanan v. Kuttikrishnan (1973 KLT 182) the question that arose for consideration was, whether the revisional court, which then was the District Court, could admit the copy of assessment register in a revision against an order under S.5 of the Act. In the decision in Narayanan v. Kuttikrishnan (1973 KLT 182) the question that arose for consideration was, whether the revisional court, which then was the District Court, could admit the copy of assessment register in a revision against an order under S.5 of the Act. In considering the same this court held: "In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above and also in the light of the more recent decision of the Supreme Court in M.L. Sethi V. R.P. Kapur (AIR 1972 SC 2379) it cannot be held that the District Court is barred in appropriate cases from entertaining an application for reception of additional evidence, if in the opinion of the District Court such reception is necessary for a proper scrutiny to ascertain whether the impugned order is vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety". The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision in K.K. Karthiayani v. V:Ven/c/tec/7a/a/ye/- (1986 KLT 81 = 1985 KLJ 954) in support of his contention that, the revisional court under S.20 of the Act does not have jurisdiction to admit fresh evidence. In that case the District Court, which was then the revisional Court, allowed an application sot issue of commission to ascertain the condition of the building alleged to be in the possession of the landlord. The challenge was against the said step allowed by the revisional court. In considering the same it was held that, the revisional court cannot permit the prayer to adduce evidence which are intended to fill up the lacunae in the evidence; but in paragraph 13 itself with reference to Narayanan's case (1973 KLT 183) it is stated: "Reception of such documents became necessary in that case to effectively exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Only in such limited instances, fresh materials can be brought in for a limited purpose". The point to be noted is, the decision in K.K. Karthiayani's case (1985 KLJ 954) does not state that, the revisional court has no jurisdiction at all to admit additional evidence. As has noticed the decision in Narayanan's case (1973 KLT 182) held if the evidence sought to be admitted is necessary to ascertain whether the impugned order is vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety, such document can be received in evidence. 5. As has noticed the decision in Narayanan's case (1973 KLT 182) held if the evidence sought to be admitted is necessary to ascertain whether the impugned order is vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety, such document can be received in evidence. 5. In this case, as has noted, the additional documents land II are proceedings instituted by the present respondent himself to evict one Shanmughan who was in possession of the eastern room. He obtained an order in his favour and got delivery also. Ground No. 11 of the appeal memorandum filed by he respondent against the order of the rent controller reads: "The finding of the lower court that one Shanmugam might have vacated one of the rooms is against facts and evidence". In the description of the shop room in the petition for eviction the eastern boundary is stated to be: " ".The additional documents would show that, the respondent had instituted a proceeding for the eviction of the said Shanmughan and got an order of eviction pursuant to which he obtained the delivery also. Therefore, for scrutinizing the legality and propriety of the finding by the lower authority that the respondent needs bona fide the shop room for the business of PW-2, the additional documents are necessary. In the circumstance, the respondent who got the said order of eviction and obtained delivery pursuant to it since not only did not reveal that fact but has taken an inconsistent stand even before the appellate authority, he is not entitled to object this petition on the ground that the petitioner ought to have produced the said documents earlier. These documents are necessary for the effective exercise of the revisional jurisdiction to satisfy as to the legality, regularity and propriety of the said finding by the appellate authority. In that view the petition has to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. Additional documents I and II are admitted in evidence and are marked as Exts. B1 and B2 respectively. The petition is allowed as indicated above.