G. SURYA KUMARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the vires and constitutional validity of a provision of a statute has been called in question.

(2.) Therefore, the facts of the case are not of much significance. However, a thumbnail sketch of facts as can be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition runs as follows:

(3.) The jurisdictional Rent Controller referred to supra, namely, the X Judge, Small Cause Court, Chennai, has been arrayed as Respondent No.2. It is seen from the records before me that the second respondent has been duly served on 27.06.2005. I am of the considered opinion that in cases of this nature, the Court, which passed an order in exercise of judicial powers vested in it, should not be added as a respondent. As would be evident from the thumbnail sketch of facts, which I have culled out from the affidavit and set out supra, the jurisdictional Rent Controller had only exercised his judicial powers and passed an order of rejection.