JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, landlord of the building bearing Nos. 14/467-B and 14/467-A in Thrissur District, has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P8 order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the Accomodation Controller -Tahsildar, under Section 13(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1965 (‘Act, 1965’ for short). Apparently, aggrieved by the order, petitioner/landlord has preferred an appeal before the District Collector—appellate authority, under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1965. 2. Even though various contentions are raised with respect to the illegality of Exhibit P8 order passed by the Tahsildar, in my considered opinion, when the Act, 1965 prescribes a statutory modality to deal with an order passed by the Accommodation Controller, the petitioner has definitely to resort to the said provision. 3. The case projected by the petitioner attacking the impugned order of the Accommodation Controller is that the petitioner landlord has not interfered with any amenities provided or enjoyed by the tenant and the Accommodation Controller has not taken into consideration the said aspect, especially due to the fact that the contention put forth by the tenants-respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is that due to the advertisement board kept in the parking area of the complex, their amenities are cut off, and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Varghese C. Kuriakose, the Accommodation Controller ought to have found that the landlord did not cut off or withheld any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. 4. Anyhow, on a perusal of Exhibit P8 impugned order, I am of the view that after considering the rival submissions made, the Accommodation Controller has found that the amenities enjoyed by the tenants for parking vehicles and loading and unloading goods was interfered with consequent to the advertisement board installed in the premises in question. It was accordingly that an interim order was passed by virtue of the power conferred under Section 13 of the Act, 1965. 5. In order to have a wholesome appreciation of the issue, it is profitable to extract Section 13 of the Act, 1965, which reads thus: “13. Landlord not to interfere with amenities enjoyed by the tenant. - (1) No landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. 5. In order to have a wholesome appreciation of the issue, it is profitable to extract Section 13 of the Act, 1965, which reads thus: “13. Landlord not to interfere with amenities enjoyed by the tenant. - (1) No landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. (2) A tenant in occupation of a building may, if the landlord has contravened the provisions of this section, make an application to the Accommodation Controller complaining of such contravention. (3) If the tenant satisfies the Accommodation Controller that the amenities were cut off or withheld with a view to compel him to vacate the building or to pay an enhanced rent, the Accommodation Controller may pass an interim order directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately, pending the enquiry referred to in sub-section (4). Explanation. -An interim order may be passed under this sub section without giving notice to the landlord. Any interim order so passed may be modified or cancelled by final order and the Accommodation Controller may give effect to such modification or cancellation. (4) If the Accommodation Controller on inquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment of the amenities and that they were cut off or withheld by the landlord without just or sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such amenities and for the purpose of enforcement of such orders, the Accommodation Controller may exercise all the powers of a Civil Court in executing a decree for injunction or specific performance. (5) The Accommodation Controller may in his discretion direct that compensation not exceeding fifty rupees. a. be paid to the landlord by the tenant, if the application under sub-Section (2) was made frivolously or vexatiously; b. be paid to the tenant by the landlord if the landlord had cut off or withheld the amenities frivolously or vexatiously. (6) (a) A tenant or landlord aggrieved by an order passed by the Accommodation Controller under this section may within thirty days from the date of receipt of such order prefer an appeal in writing to the District Collector within whose jurisdiction the building in respect of which the order appealed against is situated and he shall pass such orders on the appeal as he may deem fit. (b) The District Collector shall have the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of the matters specified in clauses (a) to (k0 of sub-section (1) of Section 23 for the purpose of disposing of an appeal under this sub-Section.” 6. On an analysis of the said provision, it is clear that Section 13 of the Act, 1965 is a complete code by itself, by which the Accommodation Controller is vested with powers to find out on enquiry as to whether the tenants have been in enjoyment of the amenities, and whether they were cut off or withheld by the landlord without just or sufficient cause; and if found so, the Accommodation Controller is entitled to pass an interim order by virtue of the power conferred under explanation to Section 13(3) of the Act, 1965, which could be modified or cancelled by a final order. 7. The Accommodation Controller is also vested with powers to give effect to, modify or cancel the order. In that process, the Accommodation Controller is vested with sufficient powers to direct the landlord to restore such amenities, and for the enforcement of such orders, the Accommodation Controller can exercise all the powers of a civil court for executing a decree for injunction or specific performance. 8. Therefore, it can be seen that the Accommodation Controller is entitled to exercise a power typical to the power conferred on the civil court under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Collector—appellate authority, is vested with powers as that of the civil court to conduct the proceedings as is provided under Section 23 of the Act, 1965. Section 23(1) of the Act, 1965 empowers the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority to exercise powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying a suit in respect of the matters enumerated thereunder. 9. That apart, sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the Act, 1965 makes it clear that the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority may summon and examine suo motuany person whose evidence appears to it to be material, and it shall be deemed to be a civil court within the meaning of Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in my considered opinion, when sufficient power is conferred on the Accommodation Controller as well as the appellate authority to tackle each and every situation with respect to the matters enumerated in Section 13 of the Act, 1965, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the interim order passed by the Accommodation Controller in a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution Of India. This is especially due to the fact that the petitioner has challenged the said order before the appellate authority as per Section 13(6) of the Act, 1965. 10. Thinking so, I have no hesitation to hold that when the statute prescribed the manner in which an application under Section 13 of the Act, 1965 is to be considered, it has to be considered exercising the powers conferred thereunder. Even assuming that the Accommodation Controller has taken a decision while passing an interim order in a particular manner adverse to the landlord, at the most, it can be termed as an illegality, susceptible to be challenged by filing an appeal as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 1965. To put it differently, petitioner has not made out a case of arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order to exercise the discretionary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Anyhow, the learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the appeal can be disposed of within a period of one month. Therefore, there will be a direction to the District Collector, Thrissur, second respondent, to finalize Exhibit P9 appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untramelled by any observations contained above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.