ANNAMMA CHACKO Vs. A C MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point argued in this writ petition is whether the Land Tribunal functioning under the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 has power to restore an application for fixation of fair rent which had been dismissed by it for default on the part of the petitioners. The landlord respondent who has been aggrieved by an order of restoration passed by the Land Tribunal is the petitioner in this O. P.

(2.) It was ruled by Vaidialingam J. in O. P. No. 2245 of 1962 that the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Act 4 of 1961 has no jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order. It was also ruled by Mathew J. in Ammad Haji v. Kelu ( 1966 KLT 819 ) that the Land Tribunal functioning under Act 1 of 1964, is not authorised to set aside an ex parte order for fixation of fair rent, under R.182 of the Kerala Agrarian Relations R.1961. These decisions appear to directly cover the point in favour of the petitioner, but counsel for the respondents maintained contra. S.101 of the Act confers certain enumerated powers on the Land Tribunal and leaves others to be prescribed by Rules. The power to set aside an ex parte order is not one of the enumerated powers conferred by the section. R.60 prescribes certain additional powers as contemplated by the section; but the disputed power is not conferred even by the said rule. Counsel for the respondents argued that the said power is comprised in the comprehensive expression, "such other interlocutory orders, as may appear to the Tribunal to be just and necessary to meet the ends of justice". I cannot agree that the power to set aside an ex parte order is comprehended within the scope of the above expression.

(3.) R.114 (C) was next relied on. By the said rule, a power to set aside ex parte orders is conferred on the "authorised officer". It was argued that such power should a fortiori be available to the Land Tribunal. The existence of the power must be spelt out from the terms of the statute and not on a fortiori considerations.