KADARI SATYANARAYANA Vs. GULSLAPUDI NARASIMHAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant against whom an order for eviction has been made under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act 1960, is the petitioner in this revision petition. On his behalf three contentions are urged by Mr. M. Suryanarayana Murty.

(2.) The first contention urged by the learned counsel is that the notification made by the Government under Section 2 Clause (4) of the Act is invalid and is contrary to the terms of the statutory provision. It is submitted that the Rent Controller does not derive any authority pursuant to the notification which is ultra virus. Clause (4) of Section 2 defines the word "controller" in these terms: "Controller" means any person not below the rank of a Tahsildar appointed by the Government to perform the functions of a Controller under this Act".

(3.) It is not contended that a District Munsif is below the rank of a Tahsildar ; nor is it submitted that the notification was not duly made and published. The contention surged by these counsel is that it is only a person that can be appointed to perform the functions of a Controller. but in the instant case, it is a Court that is vested with the functions of a Controller. In my opinion, three is no substance in this contention. The language of the notification in quite clear; it states, inter alia. that the Governor of Andhra Pradesh "appoints the following persons to perform the functions of a Controller in their respective jurisdictions". Then follows an enumeration of the persons who are to function as Controllers. It is apparent that it is certain persons who are to function as Controllers. It is apparent that it is certain persons although described by their official designations, that are appointed as Controllers and there is not basis for the arguments of the learned counsel that certain Courts have been invested eo nominee with functions as Controllers. It is true that persons, who were presiding over Courts are empower to function as Controllers. But the fact that they happen to preside over certain Courts does not constitute a flaw when the appointment is of certain persons.