(Prayer: Petition (disposed of on 20-1-1948) under S. 115 of Act V of 1908 praying the High Court to revise the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore, dated 9-12-1947 in C.M.A. No. 25 of 1947 preferred against the order dated 4-10-1947 in H.R.C. No. 106 of 1947 House Rent Controller, Tanjore etc.)

This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Tanjore, evicting the petitioner. By S. 12(1)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, the Provincial Government may, by general or special order notified in the Fort St. George Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act In exercise of this power Provincial Government have appointed District Judges in some places and Subordinate Judges in other places as appellate authorities. In the Tanjore district the Subordinate Judge has been so appointed.

A preliminary point arises as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to interfere in revision. Clearly such jurisdiction can arise only if the case is one falling within the provisions of S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The question then is whether the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore acting as an appellate authority under this Act is properly to be regarded as a Court subordinate to the High Court. Counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the following relevant authorities of this Court on this very interesting point: Abdul Satar Sahib v. Special Deputy Collector, Vizagapatam Harbour Acquisition (47 Mad. 357 [LQ/MadHC/1923/407] =19 L.W. 445 (F.B.), Parthasarathi Naidu v. Kotiswararao (47 Mad. 369 [LQ/MadHC/1923/395] =19 L.W. 402 (F.B.), Ramaswami Gounder v. Muthuvelappa Goundar (44 M.L.J. 1=16 L.W. 848), Lakshmana Chetti v. Kannappar (50 Mad. 121 [LQ/MadHC/1926/422] =24 L.W. 773 (F.B.), Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Shaik Mahaboob Saheb (1943) 2 M.L.J. 615=56 L.W. 683), and Abdul Wahid Sahib v. Abdul Khader Sahib(1947) 1 M.L.J. 207=60 L.W. 199). In view of those authorities I find it impossible to regard the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in this matter as a Court subordinate to the High Court. Had the Subordinate Judge been appointed in the Act as the appellate authority the position might well have been different; for then there would have been an indication of intention on the part of the Legislature to give jurisdiction in such matters to an existing Court, I say might have been different, because even so. I am inclined to the view that the remaining provisions of S. 12 of the Act would negative any such intention, as clause 3 of S. 12 directs that in hearing an appeal the appellate authority shall send for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal. Thus the appellate authority is entitled to make enquiries himself apart from hearing the parties and to take the results of those enquiries into account in arriving at his decision. This provision is entirely inconsistent with the accepted rules which would govern a Court. Again it is noteworthy that the Act empowers the Provincial Government to confer, the power of appellate authorities on such officers and authorities as they think fit. There is here no indication of intention to leave these matters for consideration by any Civil Court. Any officer or authority could be appointed. In Abdul Wahid Sahib v. Abdul Khader Sahib (1947) 1 M.L.J. 207=60 L.W. 199), my learned brother, Yahya Ali, J. has decided this same point. He came to the conclusion that the language of S. 12 makes it clear that a District Judge or Subordinate Judge notified as the appellate authority is appointed as a persona designate and not as a Court, and I am in complete agreement with that conclusion.

Accordingly the petition is dismissed with costs. C.M.P. No. 7268 of 1947 is dismissed.