CHING CHONG SINE Vs. PUTTAY GOWDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under S. 115 C. P. C. to revise the order of the learned district Judge, Coimbatore in C. R. P. 1052 of 1962. The learned District Judge allowed a revision by the landlord against the judgment of the learned Subordinate judge, Ootacamund in C. M. A. 2 of 1962 by which the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the order of the House Rent Controller in H. R. C. 69 of 1960 and held that there was no wilful default by the tenant justifying his eviction. The learned district Judge came to the conclusion that there was wilful default and so allowed the revision. Realising the limitations of S. 115 C. P. C. , Mr. A. K. Sriraman learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the learned District Judge in so far as he differed from the Subordinate Judge and held that there was wilful default in the payment of rent by the tenant was either exercising a jurisdiction not vested in him or acted with material irregularity and therefore this Court in exercise of its powers under S. 115 C. P. C. should interfere.

(2.) I am afraid the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the ambit of S. 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are not justified by the wording of that section. He has referred me to two decisions of this court, one of Rajagopala Aiyangar J. in C. R. P. No. 1420 of 1954 (Mad) and another by Rajamannar C. J. in Sasivarna Thevar v. Ponnu, 1957-1 Mad LJ 158. In the case decided by Rajammnar C. J. he extracts with approval a paragraph from the judgment of Rajagopala Aiyangar J. which reads thus:

(3.) THE implications of the word "propriety" have been considered by the Supreme court in Raman and Raman v. Govt. of Madras thus: