Findings given by appellate authority upheld.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. These two revisions stand posted before us as a Bench because a question of jurisdiction of the appellate authority was raised and the learned single Judge who Was earlier seized of these two revisions, deemed fit to refer them to a Bench.

2. Before we take up the question of jurisdiction, it will be appropriate if we trace as to how these revisions have come to be preferred to this Court. The tenants within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) hereinafter referred to as the Act, are the petitioners in these two revisions. The respondents are the landlords within the meaning of the Act. The landlords sought the eviction of the premises in question for demolition and re-construction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The Controller dismissed the petitions for eviction. The landlords preferred appeals and they were heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, Ramanathapuram District as the appellate authority, under the Act. These revisions are directed against the decisions of the appellate authority.

3. Mr. V. Venkataswamy, learned Counsel for the tenants raises the question of jurisdiction of the appellate authority in the following manner : According to him, the notification under Section 23 of the Act, conferring jurisdiction as appellate authority under the Act on all the Subordinate Judges, including those of Ramanathapuram district, was made in the year 1973 vide notification II-1 No. 3006 (f) of 1973 and the court of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur came to be constituted only in the year 1982 and hence that notification cannot be of any avail for the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur to exercise the powers of the appellate authority under the Act and hence the appeals entertained, heard and disposed of by him, must be held to be without jurisdiction. Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, reads as follows:

The Government may, be general or special order notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of Appellate Authorities for the purpose of this Act, in such areas and in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.

The concerned notification confers on the officers mentioned in column (1) of the table the powers of the appellate authority for the purposes of the Act. Amongst the officers mentioned in column (1) fall all Subordinate Judges within the respective jurisdiction in the area mentioned in column (2) which takes in Ramanathapuram district. According to Mr. V. Venkataswamy, learned Counsel for the tenants, on the date of the notification in 1973, the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, not having been constituted, the said notification would not cover the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur and thus, he must be held to have lacked jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the appellate authority, under the Act. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the tenants places reliance on a pronouncement of V. Balasubrahmanyan, J., in R. Purushothaman v. K.S. Vyayalakshmi AIR1982Mad308 . There the learned single Judge was faced with a similar contingency and he was of the view that only those officers and authorities who were actually in existence at the time of the notification conferring the power could be competent to exercise such powers of appellate authorities. The view of the learned single Judge has been expressed in the following terms:

Necessarily therefore this process of conferment of appellate jurisdiction in terms of Section 23 requires as a pre-condition that the officers and authorities in question must as on that date, exist as authorities and officers. This at once excludes officers and authorities who are not in existence or who are only in contemplation. Although a notification conferring jurisdiction by the Government under Section 23 of the Act, when once it is properly done and notified will have force thereaft