- (1.)THE revision is against the order of the Court of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in M.P.No. 1646 of 198! in H.R.A.No.530 of 1981. THE tenant is the revision petitioner.
(2.)THE respondent herein is the owner of the petition-scheduled residential premises and the petitioner herein is a statutory tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE respondent-landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller, Madras, under section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. THE Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.662 per month payable from the date of the commencement of the original tenancy subject to the law of limitation. Aggrieved thereby the tenant revision petitioner, who is the Collector of Madras, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority in H.R.A.No.530 of 1981. THE Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent at Rs.500 per month, to be given effect from the date of the application. THEreupon- the tenant filed M.P.No. 1646 of 1981 before the Appellate Authority for review of the order. He contended that as per the Bench decision of this Court rendered in THE State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Accommodation Controller v. K.N.Danasekar, (1980) 93 L.W.207, the fair rent fixed under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in respect of a building taken over by the Government shall become effective from the date of the commencement of the original tenancy itself subject to the law of limitation, the order of the Appellate Authority directing payment of the fair rent from the date of the application is a mistake and prayed for review of the appellate order and to direct the fair rent to be paid from the date of commencement of the tenancy subject to the law of limitation in accordance with the aforesaid Bench decision. THE application was resisted by the tenant, but the learned Appellate Authority allowed the application. Hence this revision by the tenant.
The only contention advanced by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner-the Collector of Madras and Accommodation Controller, is that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Act are only persona designata, that they are not courts, that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have no application and they have therefore no right to review their orders. It is needless for the purpose of this case to go into the question whether the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are courts and whether the Civil Procedure Code as such applies to the proceedings before them. Suffice it to point out that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority empowered to determine questions affecting the rights of citizens are certainly judicial bodies and the proceedings before them are undoubtedly of a judicial nature. It is well settled principle that such judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals adjudicating upon the rights of parties must posses inherent powers, apart from the express provisions of law, which are necessary for their existence and for the proper discharge of the duties imposed upon him by law.Every judicial or quasi-judicial body, in the absence of express provision, must be deemed to possess, as inherent to its very constitution all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo the wrong in the course of the administration of justice. This is based on the principles embodied in the maxim quando lex abguid alicut concredit conneelere vidature id quo res ipso esse non potest (when the law gives anything to any one it gives also all those things without which the thing itself would be unavailable). Where an error apparent on the face of the record is committed by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority in the discharge of its functions it must necessarily have the power to rectify that error and to deny that judicial authority this right to undo the wrong will be self-defeating. Such a rigidity of law, far from advancing the cause of justice will result in perpetration of injustice. It cannot be said that merely because there are no express provisions in the rules framed under the Act empowering the authorities constituted under the Act to review their order in appropriate cases such authorities have no such power to do justice or redress a wrong. The following observation of Mahmood, J. in Narasingha Dass v. Mangal Dube, 5 All.163 (F.B.) is worthy of note:"A1I courts are not to act upon the principle that every procedure has to be taken as prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the Code, but on the converse principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by law. As a matter of general principle, prohibitions cannot be presumed."Though these observations have been made with reference to courts they apply with equal force to all judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals which are constituted, to adjudicate upon valuable rights of citizens. 1 therefore, hold that the Rent Controllers and the Appellate Authorities under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act have inherent power to review their own orders with a view to correcting patent or obvious mistakes in order to advance the ends of justice and redress a wrong.

In the case on hand the Appellate Authority has directed the fair rent to be paid from the date of this application, for fixation of fair rent. But, as per the aforesaid Bench decision the fair rent is payable from the date of commencement of the original tenancy subject to the law of limitation. The Appellate Authority has overlooked this decision and passed an erroneous order directing payment of the fair rent from the date of the application. When this patent error has been brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, it has exercised the powers of review and rectified the mistake. The order of the Appellate Authority does not, therefore, suffer from any infirmity.

In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. No costs.