LAWS(MAD)-1984-7-3

V K JOSEPH Vs. STATE

Decided On July 12, 1984
V.K.JOSEPH Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A peep into a statute, a look at the Constitution and off to Court may appear to be a good enough formula for the petitioner to file a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, but not to the Court, because it will not issue rule nisi on the basis of scanty material.

(2.) After the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been on the statute book for nearly a quarter century, the petitioner herein, who is facing an action for eviction filed by the owner of a building for non-payment of rent, claims to have discovered a constitutional flaw in S.2(3) of the Act and a statutory contravention in S.18(1) of the Act. As stated earlier, the owner of a building in the occupation of the petitioner has filed a petition in R.C.O.P. 3069 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner's defence would appear to be that he has not committed any default in payment of rent and his occupation of the building is referable to an agreement of sale and part performance thereof.

(3.) Even before that case has been taken up for trial, the petitioner has come to this Court praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Rent Controller (2nd respondent) from hearing and disposing of the petition under the Rent Control Act. According to the petitioner. Sec.2(3) of the Act, empowers the Government to appoint 'any person' as a Controller under the Act and the conferment of such sweeping powers on the Government without prescription of qualifications for the person to be appointed as Controller amounts to conferment of arbitrary and unguided powers on the Government. The second contention is that under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, a Judge of a Small Cause Court, has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of immovable property. But in violation of this provision, the second respondent has been conferred with powers of eviction under the Act.