Definition, powers and duties of Controller.

ORDER :-A peep into a statute, a look at the Constitution and off to Court may appear to be a good enough formula for the petitioner to file a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, but not to the Court, because it will not issue rule nisi on the basis of scanty material.

2. After the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been on the statute book for nearly a quarter century, the petitioner herein, who is facing an action for eviction filed by the owner of a building for non-payment of rent, claims to have discovered a constitutional flaw in S.2(3) of the Act and a statutory contravention in S.18(1) of the Act. As stated earlier, the owner of a building in the occupation of the petitioner has filed a petition in R.C.O.P. 3069 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner's defence would appear to be that he has not committed any default in payment of rent and his occupation of the building is referable to an agreement of sale and part performance thereof.

3. Even before that case has been taken up for trial, the petitioner has come to this Court praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Rent Controller (2nd respondent) from hearing and disposing of the petition under the Rent Control Act. According to the petitioner. Sec.2(3) of the Act, empowers the Government to appoint 'any person' as a Controller under the Act and the conferment of such sweeping powers on the Government without prescription of qualifications for the person to be appointed as Controller amounts to conferment of arbitrary and unguided powers on the Government. The second contention is that under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, a Judge of a Small Cause Court, has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of immovable property. But in violation of this provision, the second respondent has been conferred with powers of eviction under the Act.

4. Both these contentions have to be rejected at the threshold itself because of the patent fallacy contained in them. Sec.2(3) of the Act, which defines the term 'Controller' reads as follows-

" 'Controller' means any person appointed by the Government, by notification, to exercise the powers of a Controller under this Act for such area as may be specified in the notification."

No doubt, a reading of the sub-section in isolation would suggest an inference that any man, woman or child living on earth may be appointed by the Government by notification to exercise the powers of a Controller. Thus, reading the sub-section with blinkers and then straightway jumping to the provisions of the Constitution, the petitioner would raise an argument that Sec.2(3) of the Act confers arbitrary powers on the Government and is, therefore, violative of the Constitution. The fallacy contained in the petitioner's argument lies in his attempt to

construe the words 'any person' in isolation.

5. Before the words contained in a statutory provision are construed, the Act must be viewed in its entire conspectus and the object of the Act as well as all relevant provisions must be taken into account. Seen in that manner, it may be noticed that the preamble of the Act sets out that it is -

"an act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of the letting of residential and non-residential buildings and the control of rents of such buildings and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Tamil Nadu".

6. Then, it has to be pointed out that the Act contemplates two kinds of authorities. (1) Rent Controller, and (2) Authorised Officer. Whenever a vacancy arises of a premises attracting the provisions of the Act, a notice of vacancy has to be given by the landlord to the Authorised Officer under Sec.3. In respect of Government tenancies, a landlord can approach the Authorised Officer for seeki