JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. In these two revisional applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India two tenants of a premises have separately challenged order dated April 10, 1997 passed by the Competent Authority under the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 ("Act") thereby rejecting applications filed by them under Section 25 of the aforesaid Act as not maintainable. 2. The petitioners herein filed two separate applications under Section 25 of the Act thereby claiming compensation on account of loss suffered by them in respect of moveable property which were kept in the said house when the same had fallen down on the allegation that they were tenants under the owner of the said building and that due to the negligent act on the part of the Metro Railway authority, the house collapsed as a result of which they suffered injury and loss in respect of those moveable properties mentioned therein. 3. The competent authority has rejected the said application on two fold grounds. Firstly, according to the competent authority, the owner of the building and the Metro Railway authority having entered into a written compromise by which the Railway authority undertook to reconstruct the said house and the owner of the building having agreed to abandon all their claim of damages against the Railway authority, the tenants of such building cannot separately claim compensation. Secondly, the competent authority was of the view that unless the applicant under Section 25 of the Act claims any damages for the loss and injury in respect of any immoveable property such as land, building, street, road or passage, such applicant cannot maintain an application for loss suffered to the moveable property kept in such building. 4. Mr. Banerjee, the learned senior advocate in support of these applications has placed strong reliance upon Section 25 of the Act and has contended that in order to succeed in an application under section 25 of the Act, it is not necessary that the applicant must claim damages for the loss or injury in respect of immovable property. Mr. Banerjee contends that without claiming any damages with regard to immoveable property, a claimant is also entitled to maintain application for damages in respect of moveables alone. 5. Mr. Mr. Banerjee contends that without claiming any damages with regard to immoveable property, a claimant is also entitled to maintain application for damages in respect of moveables alone. 5. Mr. Banerjee further contends that merely because the owner of the building had arrived at a compromise with the Metro Railway authority, such fact cannot preclude the claimants who are tenants in respect of the suit property from claiming compensation inasmuch as agreement between owners and the Metro Railway authority is not binding upon the claimants. 6. Mr. Basu, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Railway authority has on the other hand supported the order passed by the competent authority and has contended that in view of existence of an alternative remedy by way of an appeal, this court should not entertain this application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Before appreciating the contentions advanced by Mr. Banerjee, it is necessary to refer to the provision contained in Section 25 of the Act which is reproduced below:- "25(1). Where the metro railway administration exercises any power conferred on it by or under this Act and in consequence thereof any damage, loss or injury is sustained by any person interested in any land, building, street, road or passage, the metro railway administration shall be liable to pay to such person for such damage, loss or injury such amount as may be determined by the competent authority. (2) If the amount determined by the competent authority under subsection (1) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount payable shall, on an appeal preferred by either of the parties, within sixty days from the date of order of the competent authority to the appellate authority be determined by an order of the appellate authority. (3) The competent authority or the appellate authority while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall have due regard to the damage, loss or injury sustained by any person interested in the land, building, street, road or passage by reason of- (i) the removal of trees or standing crops, if any; (ii) the temporary severance of the land, building, street, road or passage; (iii) any injury to any other property whether moveable or immovable. (4) The procedure and the manner of deposit and payment of amount payable for acquiring any land, building, street, road or passage or any right of user in or any right in the nature of easement on any land, building, street, road or passage shall be followed in the case of procedure and the manner of deposit and payment of the amount determined by the competent authority or the appellate authority under this Section." 8. A plain reading of the aforesaid Section makes it abundantly clear that any person interested in any land, building, street, road or passage who has suffered any damage, loss or injury in consequence of any act of the Metro Railway authority in exercise of the power conferred under the Act, can maintain such application. The legislature has not conferred such right limited to the owner thereof but has also extended to "any person interested" implying that a lawful tenant is also entitled to make such application. 9. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 does not refer to any damage, loss or injury in respect of any immovable property but it refers to any person interested in such immovable property and as such the finding of the authority below that Section 25(1) prescribes claim of compensation in respect of immovable property only is on the face of it erroneous. 10. Thus, if sub-sections (1) and (3) of the said Section 25 of the Act are read together it will be clear that a person without praying for compensation in respect of immovable property can maintain an application for injury to any other property although the same is moveable. 11. In view of the fact that the applicants were not party to the compromise made between owners and Railway authority such compromise cannot prevent the applicants from claiming compensation for loss suffered by them. 12. Thus, I find substance in the contentions of Mr. Banerjee that the competent authority below refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by not entertaining the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 25 of the Act on the ground that they having restricted their claim to loss of moveables are not entitled to maintain such application. As indicated earlier, they cannot be deprived of their right conferred under Section 25 of the Act merely because their landlord has compromised with the Railway authority. 13. The submission advanced by Mr. As indicated earlier, they cannot be deprived of their right conferred under Section 25 of the Act merely because their landlord has compromised with the Railway authority. 13. The submission advanced by Mr. Basu that existence of an alternative remedy by way of an appeal is a bar in entertaining this application, in my opinion, is not tenable in the eye of law. Existence of an alternative remedy is a circumstance which will be taken into consideration by a court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but that is not absolute bar. Where the authority below refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law on the wrong impression that it has no such authority, it becomes a question of jurisdiction and in such a case no disputed question of facts is involved and to cut short the unnecessary process of litigation by way of appeal and consequent remand, this court is entitled to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, I overrule the contention made by Mr. Basu in this regard. 14. Therefore, I set aside the orders impugned in these two applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and direct the competent authority to dispose of the claim of the petitioners after taking evidence. While disposing of such application the competent authority will also give opportunity to the petitioners to prove that they were lawful tenants of the said building at the relevant point of time. 15. With the above observations these revisional applications are allowed. No order as to costs.