N. Arunachalam vs Lt. Colonel V. Srinivasan

T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.—In this Civil Revision case two questions have been argued: - (i) Whether the Civil Revision Petition is

maintainable at all in the High Court, and (2) Whether the order does satisfy the requirements of Rule 18(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and

Rent Control) Rules, 1961. The landlord filed an application u/s 14 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The application was

posted for hearing on 13th June, 1966. As the landlord was absent, it was dismissed. On an affidavit sworn to by the Advocate for the landlord

filed in support of an application to restore the original Rent Control Petition and after hearing the parties, the Rent Controller set aside the ek parte

order.

Mr. G.N. Chari, learned Counsel for the petitioner tenant before me contends that the order suffers by two infirmities, namely, that the Rent

Controller did not give any finding whether sufficient cause has been shown by the landlord for restoration of the application dismissed for default;

and (2) the procedure adopted by the landlord in setting up his Advocate to file the affidavit in support of the application Was not warranted under

Rule 18(3).

In so far as the latter contention is concerned, I do not think it is well founded. The rule says that a person aggrieved by the ex parte order may

apply to the Controller and the application may be by the affected party. The material in support of the application may be furnished by any one of

the choice of the persons affected. Byway of illustration if a person is involved in an accident and is therefore prevented to appear in Court on the

date of hearing and his father or his son or his relative filed an affidavit stating the facts in support of an application for restoration of the suit

dismissed for default or allowed ex park, it cannot be said that such a material furnished in support of the application cannot be deemed to be a

material furnished by the person affected himself. So also in this case the Counsel who appeared for the landlord took upon himself the

responsibility of filing a petition or an affidavit stating the facts and the circumstances under which the petitioner or himself could not be present on

the date of hearing. Such material furnished by the Counsel is only for the landlord and not in furtherance of a cause of a person other than the

landlord. In my opinion, the petition filed by the Counsel for the landlord before the Rent Controller supported by an affidavit of his Advocate is

certainly an application made by the aggrieved landlord himself notwithstanding the fact that the landlord by himself did not swear to an affidavit or

file a verified petition in support of the application to set aside the ex parte order.

The second contention of Mr. G.N. Chari is well founded. The order of the Rent Controller is non-speaking. It does not even state whether a

sufficient cause has been shown by the landlord who is the aggrieved party; nor does it refer to the fact that the Controller was satisfied with the

absence of the landlord. I have therefore no hesitation in setting aside this order.

Learned Counsel for the respondent however states that no Civil Revision Petition can be entertained against an order made by the Rent

Controller under Rule 18(3). It is suggested that as an appeal lay against an order passed by the Rent Controller under Rule 18(3) a revision

against the said order of the Rent Controller ought not to be entertained. Section 25 is one amongst many sections in the Madras Buildings Act,

1960 which Act itself is a beneficial piece of legislation. It cannot be assumed or presumed by necessary implication that the jurisdiction of this

Court as a revisional Court otherwise than u/s 25 of the Madras Buildings Act, i960 Would be excluded by reason of an express provision bike

Section 25 of the Madras Buildings Act. Mr. G.N. Chari would also put it on the ground that this Civil Revision Petition can be entertained by this

Court u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, Section 115 of the CPC and Section 25 of the Madras Buildings Act are mutually

exclusive and the revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/s 115 , CPC is always available to interfere with any order of the kind before me. I am

therefore satisfied that the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable.

While setting aside the order of the Rent Controller I remit the petition for fresh disposal in accordance with law and on its merits. No costs.