The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of giving notice to the opposite party before passing an order under section 4 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and the violation of procedural rules and principles of natural justice in the allotment order.

P. Govindan Nair, J.

1. This is an application by a landlord within the meaning of that term as defined in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The prayers are to quash two orders Exts. P-1 and P-2 produced along with the affidavit in support of the petition. Ext. P-1 is an order passed by the Accommodation Controller, the third respondent to this writ application, allotting the building of the petitioner to the second respondent. Ext. P-2 is an order passed by the appellate authority in proceedings initiated by the petitioner for eviction of the second respondent. The application for eviction which was based on two grounds; arrears of rent and sub-letting without permission of the landlord, was dismissed by the Rent Control Court. The appeal shared the same fate as is seen from Ext. P-2. This order as well as the order of allotment passed by the Accommodation Controller, Ext. P-1 as already indicated, are challenged in this petition.

2. In order to understand the grounds taken in this writ application, a few facts are necessary. The building was admittedly leased by the petitioner to the first respondent. The first respondent was a student and apparently required the building only for the duration of his stay in Cannanore where the building is situate for the purpose of his studies. Apprehending that when the necessity for the 1st respondent to continue to stay in Cannanore ceased the first respondent will give possession of the building to somebody else, the writ applicant wrote to the first respondent on the 11th June, 1961 intimating the first respondent that the building should not be given to anybody else. The reaction of the first respondent to this appears to have been to approach the Accommodation Controller which the first respondent did with an application on the 13th July, 1961 stating that the building is falling vacant. On the same day, the second respondent also approached the Accommodation Controller and prayed that the building may be allotted to him. This, the Accommodation Controller did by Ext. P-1 order on the 7th August, 1961.

3. The Subordinate Judge who is the appellate authority in eviction proceedings dealing with the question of the procedure adopted by the Accommodation Controller said:

True it is that there is absolutely no evidence to establish that in the matter of such an allotment, the Accommodation Controller made any reference whatever to the appellant landlord.

4. The communication addressed by the writ applicant to the first respondent on the 11th June, 1961 has been produced as Ext. A-5 and the applications moved by the first and second respondents before the Accommodation Controller are Exts. A-7 and A-8 respectively.

5. It was found by the Rent Control Court that there was no arrears of rent. It was also found that there was no sub-letting. I may incidentally mention that the story put forward by the second respondent that pursuant to the order Ext. P-1 passed by the Accommodation Controller, the first respondent surrendered possession of the building to the landlord and that it was from the landlord that the second respondent obtained the keys of the building has been found against by the Rent Control Court. The finding has been confirmed by the appellate authority. He also found that the order of the Accommodation Controller was obtained behind the back of the landlord.

6. In view of the finding that there were no arrears and that there was no sub-letting the application for eviction was dismissed and I think rightly dismissed.

7. A further contention had been raised before the Rent Control Court as well as the appellate authority that the order passed by the Accommodation Controller should either be set aside or ignored. This of course, the authority said could not be done in proceedings for eviction on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to sit in appeal against the decision of the Accommodation Controller. Before me, counsel for the petitioner has not stres