Judgment :- Thomas, J. After hearing both sides we are constrained to send back this case to the District Court for disposing of the appeal afresh. Our reasons are the following: 2. A Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction of the tenant on two grounds, one as envisaged in S.11(3) and the other as in S.11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the act). The said order was based on certain findings of facts entered by the Rent Controller after evaluation of evidence. The aggrieved tenant filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority, which now is the District Court. Learned District Judge dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. 3. The findings of the Rent Control Court were confirmed' by the District Court on merits on the premise that those findings are supported by the evidence in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised a contention here that the Appellate Authority had not exercised its jurisdiction in the manner prescribed since the Appellate Authority failed to call for the records from the Rent Control Court. (The -above factual position is not disputed. We have seen from the report submitted by the learned District Judge that the records have not, in fact, been called for from the Rent Control Court). 5. We have to consider whether there was non exercise of jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority by not calling for the records. 6. S.18 of the Act deals with appeals. Sub-section (1) relates to the power of the Government in conferring authority on such officer not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge to exercise appellate powers for the purpose of this Act and also prescribing the period within which such appeal should be preferred. Sub-section (2) has conferred power on such Appellate Authority to order stay of further proceedings in the .matter pending decision on the appeal. Now sub-section (3) which is the crucial provision, reads thus: - "The appellate authority shall send for the records of the case from the Rent Control Court and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either directly or through the Rent Control Court, shall decide the appeal". 7. 7. The words "shall send for the records of the case from the Rent Control Court" arc couched in a mandatory tone and the inference is that the said course cannot be dispensed with (except perhaps in cases where the appeal can be rejected at the threshold itself as not maintainable). But if the appellate power has to be exercised with reference to the findings on facts the same can be done only after calling for the records. The Appellate Authority under the Act is a creature of the statute and such a statutory authority cannot act in derogation of the power conferred on it by the statute, 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord made an unsuccessful bid to tide over this difficulty by contending that the Appellate Authority would have had the opportunity to go through certified copies of all the evidence of the Rent Control Court. We have no reason to think that such certified copies were made available as the learned counsel for the landlord is not in possession of any such certified copies. 9. Learned counsel, however, argued that the Appellate Authority cannot be denied of its inherent power to dismiss the appeal at the threshold. In support of it he relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Charulalha v. Manjic (1994 (1) K.L.T. 133) in which the Bench has observed that the Appellate Authority has the right "to weed out frivolous appeals and appeals which are not maintainable at all". The said observation was made by the Division Bench with reference to Rule 16 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1979. The said decision is not in conflict with the stand which we have adopted above as the appeal could not be disposed of on merits without calling for records, though an appeal can be dismissed as not maintainable even without calling for records. But if the appeal has to be disposed of on merits we do not think that Appellate Authority can dispense with the records. Now we are not deciding the question whether the Appellate Authority can act on the certified copies of all records without calling for the records from the Rent Control Court. 10. But if the appeal has to be disposed of on merits we do not think that Appellate Authority can dispense with the records. Now we are not deciding the question whether the Appellate Authority can act on the certified copies of all records without calling for the records from the Rent Control Court. 10. In the result we allow this revision and set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and we send the case back to the District Court for disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. 11. We direct the parties to appear before the District Court on 9-1-1995. The appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The office shall despatch the records to the District Court.