The Chief Justice.-

This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari directed to the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in his capacity as the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called “the Control Act”).

The relevant facts are the following. The applicant is the landlord of No. 87, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras, of which premises the respondent is a tenant of the ground-floor portion, where he resides with his father and some brothers. Prior to June, 1946, there appears to have been disputes between the parties regarding rent and its payment. These disputes were terminated in July, 1946, by payment of the rent due. It is said that the respondent was in default in regard to the following two months’ rent, July and August, 1946; but nothing arises regarding those months. In respect of rent for the months of September and October, 1946, the applicant’s case is that the respondent was in default and, in consequence, the applicant applied to the Rent Controller, pursuant to the provisions of the Control Act, for an order of ejectment. The Controller dismissed the application on the ground that it had not been established that there was any default. The applicant preferred an appeal to the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes in his capacity as the appellate authority under the Control Act. On January 7th, 1947, the learned Chief Judge directed notice of the appeal to the respondent. This was not served owing to some error in the address of the respondent contained in the notice. Another order was made for the issue of a second notice returnable on February 28th. On February 26th the bailiff certified that he had served this notice on the respondent’s brother. It would seem that at that time the respondent was detained in the hospital at Mayavaram, which is about 150 miles distant from Madras. Upon being apprised of the position, the learned Chief Judge directed further notice to the respondent for March 21st. According to his return, the bailiff, on March 17th tendered the notice to the respondent’s brother at the premises, it was refused whereupon the bailiff affixed it to the premises. The respondent, in an affidavit, alleges that this brother is a minor. The appeal was adjourned and came on for hearing on April 2nd. No one appeared for the respondent. The learned Judge was satisfied that service had been effected as required by the rules under the Control Act, to which reference will be made presently. He heard the appeal, allowed it and directed the respondent to give possession of the premises to the applicant. His order allowing the appeal was duly drawn up. Subsequently a copy of the order was filed in the City Civil Court, Madras, in order that execution upon it could be effected. This was pursuant to section 9(1) of the Control Act. On April 24th, 1947, the respondent applied to the learned Chief Judge to set aside his order allowing the present applicant’s appeal. This came on for hearing before the learned Chief Judge and on July 16th the order was set aside and a fresh hearing of the appeal was directed.

This is an application by the applicant-landlord for a writ of certiorari against the learned Chief Judge to remove into this Court the record and to quash the order made by him on July 16th setting aside his order in appeal.

The material provisions of the Control Act are the following:

“Section 12(1)(a). The Provincial Government may, by general or special order notified in the Fort St. George Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act, in such areas or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.

* * * * *

(3) The appellate authority shall send for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as he thinks fit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document