Order of Government if offends Articles 111 and 19 of the Constitution.

This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the order of the Government of Madras dated 9th September, 1950. The petitioner is a doctor. Premises No. 2/157, Purasawalkam High Road, is owned by three brothers, P. Sourirajulu Naidu, Rangarajulu Naidu and Dhana-rajulu Naidu. On 10th October, 1938, the petitioner took the said house on lease for the purpose of running a nursing home. Since that time he has been running a nursing home under the name and style of “Nambiar’s Hospital.” On 6th February, 1945, Sourirajulu Naidu, since dead, filed an application before the Rent Controller, H.R.C. No. 3989 of 1945, for evicting the petitioner on the ground that he made a default in the payment of rent. But that was dismissed on 13th December, 1945. In October, 1946, he filed another application, H.R.C. No. 5244 of 1946, seeking to evict him on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and that he wanted the premises for his personal use. On 5th July, 1947, the House Rent Controller dismissed the application. An appeal filed against that order to the Court of Small Causes, Madras, was dismissed. The landlords filed C.M.P. 4139 of 1948 for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Small Cause Judge; but that was dismissed by a Divisional Bench of this Court on 6th October, 1948. Rangarajulu Naidu filed another application, H.R.C. No. 4788 of 1949, for evicting the petitioner, alleging that he required the upstairs for his own occupation. The House Rent Controller ordered that application. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order to the Court of Small Causes at Madras which held that the building was a non-residential one and that a second petition on the same facts was barred under section 10 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (hereafter called the Act). That order was made on 10th April, 1950. Thereafter the landlords approached the Govern-ment with a request to exempt their buildings from the operation of the provisions of the Act. The Government by their order dated 9th September, 1950, exempted the building under section 13 of the Act. The aforesaid petition was filed for getting the said order quashed. The Government filed a counter-affidavit supporting their order: but when the application came up for final disposal, the learned counsel appearing for. the Government represented that the Government did not propose to support the order but leave it to the landlords to support the same if they thought fit to do so. The landlords filed an application, C.M.P. No. 11818 to add them as party-respondents. This application was strongly opposed"by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the writ nisi was issued against the Government and when they did not oppose it, the writ should be made absolute and the landlords had no locus standi to intervene in the proceedings. He further argued that in a writ of certiorari the Tribunal whose order is sought to be quashed is the only necessary party and therefore the landlords need not be made parties to the petition. I cannot agree. If this contention be accepted, the High Court would be issuing writs against the interests of parties without hearing them even though they are anxious to be represented in Court. That procedure would be against all principles of natural justice. No authority has been cited to me which compels me to hold that a party affected has no right to be heard in a writ of certiorari. It is one thing to say that in a writ of certiorari the Tribunal whose order is sought to be quashed is a necessary party. But it is altogether a different thing to assert that the party affected should not be heard. If the Tribunal is a necessary party, the party affected is a proper party. Further to meet this situation, rule 6 of the Rules to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution has been framed which enables the Court to give a hearing to the part