S. Rajam Ayyar vs Pavanambal

Mack, J.—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 u/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 M. Abdul Wahid Sahib Vs.

Dewanjee Abdul Khader Sahib, , held that District and Subordinate Judges appointed u/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 u/s 24 of the CPC for transfer of an appeal before the District Judge of Bellary to the file of another Court. Clark, J., in Chinniah

Thevar Vs. F.M. Badsha, , agreeing with the view taken by Yahya Ali, J., held that no revision could be entertained by the High Court u/s 115 of

the CPC against an order passed on appeal by such an appellate authority. A recent decision by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in K. Krishna Nair Vs.

Valliammal, , 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 designata, 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 Section 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 persdna designata and not a Court, there can be no doubt that Section 12(4) is intra

vires 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 designata as the appellate authority and that he was not a Court

subordinate to the High Court, a condition necessary for the revisional powers u/s 115 of the CPC 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 longstanding grocery

business has been conducted. This will be made an order of Court, by consent.