(Prayer: Petition (disposed of on 1-2-1949) under S. 115 of Act V of 1908 praying the High Court to revise the judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated 7-9-1948 in C.M.A. No. 16 of 1948 preferred against the order of the House Rent Controller Tindivanam dated 25-2-1948 in H.R.C. No. 71 of 1947.)

The simple point which arises in this petition is whether a revision lies to the Court against an order passed by a Subordinate Judge appointed under S. 12(1) of Madras Act XV of 1946 as the appellate authority for purposes of the Act. In the present case, the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore reversed in an appeal to him, an order passed by the House Rent Controller and directed the eviction of the petitioner. The point has already been clearly decided by two single Judges of this Court who were in agreement. Yahya Ali, J. in Abdul Wabid Sahib v. Abdul Khader Sahib (1947 (1) M.L.J. 27=60 L.W. 199) held that District and Subordinate Judges appointed under S. 12 by notification were not Courts and that such a District or Subordinate Judge was a persona designata , not being a Court subordinate to the High Court. Taking this view, Yahya Ali, J. dismissed an application under S. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of an appeal before the District Judge of Bellary to the file of another Court. Clark, J. in Chinniah Thevar v. F.M. Badsha (1948 (1) M.L.J. 314=61 L.W. 364) agreeing with the view taken by Yahya Ali J., held that no revision could be entertained by the High Court under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order passed on appeal by such an appellate authority. A recent decision by Panchapakesa Aiyar, J. in Krishna Nair v. Valliammal (1949 (1) M.L.J. 74), has been placed before me in which it is urged, a different view has been taken. In that case the facts were a little different, as the appellate authority originally notified was the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court and this was subsequently changed to the Court of Small Causes in order to enable other Judges of the Small Cause Court also to deal with such appeals. In those circumstances the view taken was that the Second Judge of the Small Cause Court did not act as a persona designate but as a Judge of the Small Cause Court and as a part of the Small Cause Court which was subordinate to the High Court. The distinction appears to me to be rather fine. None of these decisions have considered the scope of S. 12(4) which specifically seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision. This clause reads as follows:

The decision of the appellate authority and subject only to such decision, an order of the controller shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court of law whether in a suit or other proceeding or by way of appeal or revision

If the Subordinate Judge as the notified appellate authority is persona designate and not a Court, there can be no doubt that S. 12(4) is intra virus and rules out any remedy by suit or by way of appeal or revision. I have no hesitation in the present case in holding, in agreement with Yahya Ali, J. and Clark, J. that the Subordinate Judge, was appointed persona designate as the appellate authority and that he was not a Court subordinate to the High Court, a condition necessary for the provisional powers under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to be invoked.

This revision petition is not maintainable. Even if it was, having heard both sides, I can see no ground for any interference in revision. The petition is dismissed with costs.

The learned Advocate for the respondent agrees to give two months time for the petitioner to vacate the premises where a long standing grocery business has been conducted. This will be made an order of Court, by consent.