ORDER : Hariprasad, J. Revision petitioners, who are siblings, filed altogether five petitions seeking eviction of their tenants under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, “the B.R.C. Act”) on the grounds of bonafide need for own occupation and reconstruction. According to them, they wanted to construct a multi-storied commercial building as a joint venture after demolishing the existing building. Pursuant to an administrative order, three eviction petitions were retained before the Principal Rent Control Court, Cherthala and two were made over to the Additional Rent Control Court. Petitioners approached the Principal Rent Control Court, Cherthala by filing a petition under Sections 24 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”) and Section 6(3) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act,1957 (in short, “Act of 1957”) seeking the withdrawal of two petitions from Additional Rent Control Court to the Principal Rent Control Court. 2. After hearing both sides, the Principal Rent Control Court allowed the application for withdrawal of two cases as requested by the petitioners. Principal Rent Control Court rightly found that Section 24 of CPC is inapplicable because the general power of transfer and withdrawal can be invoked only by the High Court or the District Court. However, the Principal Rent Control Court drawing power from Section 6(3) of the Act of 1957 allowed the request of the petitioners. 3. One of the tenants, aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Rent Control Court, Cherthala, approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Alappuzha by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the B.R.C. Act. As per the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge (Appellate Authority) found that Section 6(3) of the Act of 1957 does not confer any power on the Rent Control Court to transfer or withdraw any case to another Rent Control Court. On that reasoning the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Principal Rent Control Court on the application filed at the behest of the petitioners was set aside. 4. Heard Shri B.Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri T.Jayakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. On that reasoning the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Principal Rent Control Court on the application filed at the behest of the petitioners was set aside. 4. Heard Shri B.Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri T.Jayakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. At the outset, we express our agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority) to find that the Principal Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to transfer or withdraw a case from the Additional Rent Control Court. 6. Section 6 of the Act of 1957 deals with the constitution of Courts of Principal and Additional Subordinate Judge and Munsiff. Section 6(1) of the Act of 1957 says that when more than one Subordinate Judge is appointed to a Subordinate Judge's Court, or more than one Munsiff is appointed to a Munsiff's Court, one of the Subordinate Judges or Munsiffs shall be appointed the Principal Subordinate Judge or the Principal Munsiff and the others Additional Subordinate Judges or Additional Munsiffs, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 specifically says that each of the Judges or Munsiffs appointed to the respective Courts may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the Court. 7. Sub-section (3) to Section 6 is the provision wrongly applied in this case. It says that subject to the general or special orders of the District Judge, the Principal Subordinate Judge or the Principal Munsiff may from time to time make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the distribution of business of the Court among the various Judges or Munsiffs thereof. 8. On a reading of Section 6(3) of the Act of 1957 it will be clear that what is intended thereunder is to empower the Principal Subordinate Judge or Principal Munsiff to issue administrative directions for proper distribution of judicial work. Such distribution of work by the Principal Subordinate Judge or Principal Munsiff may be done only subject to the general or special orders of the District Judge. Administrative directions so issued for the distribution of business of the court is different from exercising a power to withdraw or transfer cases once distributed in accordance with the general or special orders of the District Judge. 9. Importantly, Rent Control Court is not a creation of the Act of 1957. Administrative directions so issued for the distribution of business of the court is different from exercising a power to withdraw or transfer cases once distributed in accordance with the general or special orders of the District Judge. 9. Importantly, Rent Control Court is not a creation of the Act of 1957. Instead, it is constituted under Section 3 of the B.R.C. Act. Section 3(1) explicitly says that the Government may, by notification in the Gazettee, appoint a person who is or is qualified to be appointed, a Munsiff to be the Rent Control Court for such local areas as may be specified therein. It goes without saying that the Rent Control Court is a creation of the statute. Section 23 of the B.R.C. Act enumerates the powers conferred on the Rent Control Court. B.R.C. Act does not confer any power on the Principal Rent Control Court to withdraw a case from Additional Rent Control Court. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is right in holding that Section 6(3) of the Act of 1957 has no bearing on the issue. Likewise, Section 151 of CPC also cannot be invoked by a Rent Control Court. 10. The most vital provision in the relevant subordinate legislation has been lost sight of by the Principal Rent Control Court. Rule 14 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 (in short, “the Rules”) reads thus: “An appellate Authority may transfer a case from the file of one Rent Control Court to that of another Rent Control Court within his jurisdiction. (1) If the Rent Control Court on whose file the case is pending is personally interested in it and reports the matter to the Appellate Authority; or (2) if, on an application for transfer by any party in the case, the Appellate Authority is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for the transfer.” It is therefore evident that the Rent Control Appellate Authority alone is bestowed with the jurisdiction to transfer eviction petitions from one Rent Control Court to another Rent Control Court within its jurisdiction. To this extent the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Authority is legally correct. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that this revision is liable to be dismissed for the above reason and the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the Rent Control Appellate Authority with an appropriate application under Rule 14 of the Rules. To this extent the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Authority is legally correct. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that this revision is liable to be dismissed for the above reason and the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the Rent Control Appellate Authority with an appropriate application under Rule 14 of the Rules. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the tenants have serious disputes regarding triability of the eviction petitions jointly. We do not intend to embark upon that factual issue in this revision. All such questions are left open to be decided by the appropriate Rent Control Court. 12. Having considered the matter in extenso, we are of the view that driving the petitioners to the Rent Control Appellate Authority with an application under Rule 14 at this juncture will not only be a cumbersome procedure, but a time consuming exercise. 13. We, therefore, invoke our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to allow the request for transfer of R.C.P.Nos.36 of 2015 and 38 of 2015 from the Additional Rent Control Court to the Principal Rent Control Court, Cherthala. It is made clear that we do not approve the view taken by the Principal Rent Control Court that it has jurisdiction to withdraw cases once made over to the Additional Rent Control Court. In all respects, we agree with the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. We invoke our constitutional powers in this case only to meet the ends of justice. The Rent Control Court shall decide the issues in accordance with their merit. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.