V X JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXCEPT one writ appeal, W.A.No.842 of 1984, the other cases are petitions. The appellant in the writ appeal was the petitioner in W.P.No.6674 of 1984 petitioners in all the writ petitions including W.P.No.6674 of 1984 out of which W.ANo.842 1984 arises, are tenants within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The tenants are proceedings under the Act, instituted against them by their landlords. They have come Court impeaching the prosecution of the proceedings before the Controllers under the who are seized of them, and who in the instant cases, are the respective Judges of the of Small Causes, Madras. 2. The decision in W.P.No.6674 of 1984 has gone against the tenant/the petitioner In W.P.No.6674 of 1984 two contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge, heard and disposed of the same and they are as follows: (1) Sec.2(3) of the Act empowers the Government to appoint - any person - as a Controller under the Act and the conferment of such sweeping powers on the Government, prescription of qualifications for the person to be appointed as Controller amounts to Nainar Sundaram, J.: Except one writ appeal, W.A.No.842 of 1984, the other cases are petitions. The appellant in the writ appeal was the petitioner in W.P.No.6674 of 1984. petitioners in all the writ petitions including W.P.No.6674 of 1984 out of which W.ANo.842 1984 arises, are tenants within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The tenants are proceedings under the Act, instituted against them by their landlords. They have come Court impeaching the prosecution of the proceedings before the Controllers under the who are seized of them, and who in the instant cases, are the respective Judges of the of Small Causes, Madras.

(2.) THE decision in W.P.No.6674 of 1984 has gone against the tenant/the petitioner In W.P.No.6674 of 1984 two contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge, heard and disposed of the same and they are as follows: (1) Sec.2(3) of the Act empowers the Government to appoint -any person - as a Controller under the Act and the conferment of such sweeping powers on the Government, prescription of qualifications for the person to be appointed as Controller amounts to of the said expressions. The common Dictionary meaning of the word "person" is "a being". The Judge of a Court of Small Causes, is certainly a human being and person coming within the expressions "any person" found in Section 2 (3) of the Act. krishna Ayyar, J., in Coonoor Mosque v. Abdul Hamid Sahib, (1960)1 M.L.J. 135, as follows:

(3.) THE third point urged by the learned counsel for the tenants is as follows: -Inasmuch as the State Legislature of the Tamil Nadu has merely defined the -Controller - without prescribing any qualification or any other guidelines whatsoever enable the State Government to appoint a Controller, the said provision, namely, Sec.2(3) the Act is invalid for the reason that it confers unbridled and arbitrary powers on the Government to appoint -any person - as a Controller -. The provision does not by its contemplate the Controller to be appointed to possess any particular qualification. In such contingency if the Government pursuant to that power appoints any person to exercise powers of the Controller, such exercise of power need not necessarily be frowned upon the ground that there is lack of guidelines for such exercise. It could not be a case of lack guidelines for the very exercise of powers. It is a case of a plain conferment of a straight simple power of appointment. The substance of the grievance, seems to be lack prescription of qualifications for the person to be appointed as Controller and the guidelines therefor. The legislation having conferred such a straight and simple power on Government, we cannot insist for a rider to the provision so as to say that there has be delineation or prescription of particular qualification or qualification for the person appointed to exercise the powers of a Controller. Further -more, the Government is expected to exercise the power of appointment properly keeping in mind the functions of Controller and nature of his duties, and the proceedings to be prosecuted before him are inbuilt guidelines in this behalf in the Act itself. It would be a different matter if individual appointment is tainted with arbitrariness or other vitiating factors. As a result, reject the third point raised by the learned counsel for the tenants. -