S. RAJAM AYYAR Vs. PAVANAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE simple point which arises in this petition is whether a revision. lies to the Court against an order passed by a Subordinate Judge appointed under Section 12(1) of Madras Act XV of 1946 as the appellate authority for purposes of the Act. In the present case the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore reversed, in an appeal to him, an order passed by the House Rent Controller and directed the eviction of the petitioner. The point has already been clearly decided by two single Judges of this Court who were in agreement. Yahya Ali, J., in Abdul Wahid Sahib v. : AIR1947Mad400 , held that District and Subordinate Judges appointed under Section 12 by notification were not Courts and that such a District or Subordinate Judge was a persona designata, not being a Court subordinate to the High Court. Taking this view, Yahya Ali, J., dismissed an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of an appeal before the District Judge of Bellary to the file of another Court. Clark, J., in Chinniah Thevar v. : (1948)1MLJ314 , agreeing with the view taken by Yahya Ali, J., held that no revision could be entertained by the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order passed on appeal by such an appellate authority. A recent decision by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in Kirshna Nair v. : (1949)1MLJ74 , has been placed before me in which, it is urged, a different view has been taken. In that case the facts were a little different, as the appellate authority originally notified was the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court and this was subsequently changed to the " Court of Small Causes " in order to enable other Judges of the Small Cause Court also to deal with such appeals. In those circumstances the view taken was that the second Judge of the Small Cause Court did not act as a persona designata, but as a Judge of the Small Cause Court and as a part of the Small Cause Court which was subordinate to the High Court. The distinction appears to me to be rather fine. None of these decisions have considered the scope of Section 12(4) which specifically seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision. This clause reads as. follows:

(2.) THE learned advocate for the respondent agrees to give two months' time for the petitioner to vacate the premises where a longstanding grocery business has been conducted. This will be made an order of Court, by consent.