The Rent Controller is a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable against the order of the Rent Controller.

1. This review application is filed by the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2740 of 1993 and is against my order dated 25.11.1993 in the said civil revision petition.

2. The petitioner is the landlady under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and she filed R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller, Valliyur for eviction of the respondent tenant herein from the petition building, inter alia on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. In 1993 she filed I.A. No. 8 of 1993, where she sought for cancellation of the earlier report of the Advocate-Commissioner, regarding the condition of the building in question and sought for appointment of an engineer as Commissioner to report regarding the condition of the building. The said application was allowed. Aggrieved, the respondent herein filed the abovesaid civil revision petition, and by the above referred to order dated 25.11.19931 set aside the order in I.A. No. 8 of 1993 and allowed the civil revision petition. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.11.1993 this review petition has been filed by the landlady.

3. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the abovesaid civil revision petition itself is not maintainable. But, this point was not argued when the civil revision petition was heard. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since abovesaid civil revision petition itself is not maintainable on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said civil revision petition, the said point could be urged in a review petition as there is thus an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Venkatarayulu v. Rattamma (AIR 1939 Madras 293). He also relies on Hameed v. Kanniammal (1981) I M.L.J. 477), where Ratnam, J. (as he then was) differed from Arunachalam v. Lt. Col. Srinivasan (1968) I M.L.J. 435) in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand (AIR 1967 SC 799) and held that a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not lie against the dismissal of a petition to set aside an exparte order of eviction, passed under the Act on failure to fulfil the condition to pay costs. The said learned counsel also points out that (1981)I M.L.J. 477 ( Supra ) came to the abovesaid conclusion also on the ground that the Rent Controller is not “any court subordinate to High Court”, since the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority under the Act are persona decignata and are not courts stricto sensu . In this connection he also draws my attention to Syed Hanifa v. Mohd Khalifulla (AIR 1970 Madras 39). Further, he also relies on G. Lakshmi Ammal v. E. Chettiar (AIR 1981 Madras 21), which also holds that an application made before the High Court under Section 24 C.P.C. for transfer of proceedings from one Rent Controller to another is not maintainable since the Rent Controller (or the Appellate Authority) is not a “Court subordinate to” “High Court or District Court” referred to in Section 24, C.P.C., but a persona designata.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies on the above referred to judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as he then was) in (1968)I M.L.J. 435 ( Supra ) and also submits that the reasoning of the Supreme Court decision in the above referred to AIR 1967 S.C. 799 will not apply to the present facts. He also relies on Raju v. Mohamadabi (1993-2-L.W. 171) which holds that the Rent Controller cannot be considered to be a persona designata relying on Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank (AIR 1967 S.C. 1494). So, the said learned Counsel submits that this Court has got jurisdiction to try the abovesaid civil revision petition and that therefore, the ground taken in the review petition that this review is maintainable in view of the abovesaid lack of jurisdiction i