GOPALAN Vs. AVRONI SIPPORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case and the contentions of the parties are given in the first paragraph of my previous order dated the 29th June 1951 extracted below:

(2.) This petition was once allowed by me on the ground that the Government had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition for there was no provision for the same in Act XXIV of 1124 (Cochin), under which the proceedings were originally started. But, on appeal by the present respondent on the ground that clause 16 of the Rent Control Order had conferred such powers on the Government and that the Travancore Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Order) 1950 and S.13 of Act V of 1950 were to govern the present proceedings, the case was sent back for fresh disposal. It was heard on the 30th March 1953. On going through the records the same day I found that S.22 of the Act V of 1950 provided for an appeal to Government. It was a revisional jurisdiction that was exercised. I, therefore, passed an order the next day to post the petition again for argument on this question. It came up for argument on 14.9.1953 and both sides presented their case on the specific question mentioned above.

(3.) Mr. Mahalinga Iyer began his argument stating that though clause 28 of the Rent Control Order provided for the continuance of all proceedings started under Act XXIV of 1124 and pending at the commencement of this Order, the said Rule was ultra vires, for Act V of 1950 had not provided for the repeal of Act XXIV of 1124 and the executive authority by framing the rules under the Act would not repeal another Act passed by the legislature. He was not allowed to proceed in this direction for he had submitted before the Division Bench that the previous order was passed overlooking the provision in clause 28 of the Rent Control Order.