A AGHANDALA KURUP Vs. K FRANCIS FERNANDEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not think that the order of the Controller setting aside the ex parte order made by him against the present respondent was wrong, and, that being so, I am not disposed to interfere notwithstanding that I do not subscribe to the construction placed on S.12 (1) (b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 by the appellate authority in appeal and by the District Court in revision under S.12 B. An order setting aside an ex parte order is made by the Controller under R.9 (3) of the rules made under the Act, and S.17 (2) (d) of the Act expressly provides that rules may be made for setting aside ex parte orders passed under the Act. The order is therefore an order which the Controller is expressly authorised to make under the Act, and that being so, it is difficult to appreciate how it is not embraced by the words, an order passed by the Controller appearing in S.12 (1) (b), or why that provision should be restricted to what the courts below have called substantive orders. In my view an appeal lay against the order, and the appellate authority was wrong in thinking it did not, but since I think that the order appealed against was right, I decline to interfere in revision from revision.