ANNAMALAI NADAR Vs. D THANGAMONEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions stand posted before us as a Bench because question of jurisdiction of the appellate authority was raised and the learned single who was earlier seized of these two revisions, deemed fit to refer them to a Bench.

(2.) BEFORE we take up the question of jurisdiction, it will be appropriate if we trace as to how these revisions have come to be preferred to this court. The tenants within the meaning the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) hereinafter referred to as the Act, are the petitioners in these two revisions. The respondents are landlords within the meaning of the Act. The landlords sought the eviction of the premises question for demolition and re-construction under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act. The Controller dismissed the petitions for eviction. The landlords preferred appeals and they were heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, Ramanathapuram District as appellate authority, under the Act. These revisions are directed against the decisions of appellate authority.

(3.) AS against the submissions made by Mr.V.Venkataswamy, learned counsel for the tenants, we heard Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned counsel, appearing for the landlords submitting that the notification is general in nature and the conferment of powers is also general official titles and this is permissible by virtue of Sec.17 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891 and when such conferment of powers has been done, the powers could exercised by the holder for the time being in office and it is not necessary that the holder the office must be functioning at the time when the conferment of powers takes place this is the result of a combined reading of Sec.9 paragraph (f), Sec. 14 and Sec.17 Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891. The learned counsel for the landlords, draws attention to a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Janardan v. The State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1234: (1978)2 S.C.C. 465: 1978 S.C.C. (Crl.)277: 1978 Crl.L.J. where there was a lack of definition of "Commissioner of Police" under Sec.8 of the Bombay Prevention.of Gambling Act 4 of 1887 and yet, by virtue of Bombay Police Act 22 of 1951 an ASsistant Commissioner of Police was enabled to discharge the functions of Commissioner of Police and the exercise of the powers by the ASsistant Commissioner Police under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act 4 of 1887 was upheld by adverting Sec.17 of the Bombay General Clauses Act 1 of 1904 whose implications are similar to Sec.9 paragraph (f), Sec.14 and Sec.17 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891. Learned counsel for the landlords also brings to our notice the pronouncement of S.Natarajan, J., he then was, in Dr. Uma Rani v. Meenakshisundaram and another, W.P.No.2285 of 1985 and W.M.P.No.3885 of 1985, Order dated 19.3.1985, wherein the learned single Judge took view at variance with the one taken by V.Balasubrahmanyan, J., in R.Purushothaman K.S.Vijayalakshmi, A.I.R. 1982 Mad. 308.