This is an application against an order passed by the Rent Controller dated 28-2-70 rejecting the application of the petitioner for giving him an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence produced by the non-applicant, landlord.

The petitioner had filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent of the premises let out to him by the non-applicant on the ground that the rent agreed to between the parties was excessive and therefore a fair rent under S. 8 of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) should be fixed by the Controller. The Controller took evidence of both parties and wanted to adjourn the case for arguments when the petitioner filed an application before him that as the non-applicant landlord had introduced certain new matters in evidence which were not touched in the objections, he should be given a right, to rebut that evidence. The learned Controller was of the view that as both parties had led evidence there was no reason to give any further opportunity to the petitioner. He accordingly rejected the application of the petitioner and fixed the case for arguments. Against this interlocutory order of the Rent Controller, a revision was preferred in this court which was heard by Bhat J. who has referred the case to the Full Bench.

The main point involved in this case is as to whether or not the interlocutory order passed by the Controller is revisable by this court either under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. or under S. 104 of the State Constitution. In other words it has to be determined whether the order passed by the Controller was passed as persona designate, or as a civil court, subordinate to the High Court. The Petitioners contention before us is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was appointed as Controller by the Government not as persona designata, but as a member of a civil court, or in other words as presiding officer of a civil court and therefore any order passed by him would be an order passed by any court subordinate to the High Court and therefore revisable. On the other hand the contention of the respondent was that the Controller was a purely executive authority and his appointment was as persona designata and therefore no revision could lie to this Court.

Before we examine the contentions raised before us it may be necessary to mention the scheme of the Act. The present dispute arises from an interlocutory order passed by the Controller under S. 8 of the Act. The relevant portions of S. 8 (1) run as follows: -

In any of the following cases the Controller shall on application by any landlord or tenant, fix the fair rent as set forth hereunder: -

(a) Where the provisions of Schedule A apply and there is no cause for the alteration of the rate of the fair rent as determined according to the schedule for any of the reasons mentioned in the following clauses, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule A.

(b) Where during the currency of a fair rent payable for any house or shop there has been an increase in the municipal taxes etc. by adding to it the amount of such increase as is payable by the landlord by agreement with the tenant over and above what is payable by the landlord himself under the local municipal law.

(c) Where during the currency of a fair rent payable for any house or shop the landlord has made some addition, alteration or improvements in the house or shop...............

Provided that when the house or shop is in occupation of a tenant at the time of the said addition, alteration improvement etc. the addl. rent shall not be recoverable from such tenant unless the improvement etc. has been made at the written request of the tenant.

(d) Where during the currency of fair rent the landlord has supplied any furniture for use of the tenant in the house or shop.

(e) Excepting the case covered by Cl-(f) following where the provisions of Schedule A for determining the fair rent do not apply, either because the house or shop or