Judgment :- 1. This is a petition by the tenant of House No. 141 of the Eighth ward (formerly House No.247) and later House No.258 of the fifth ward) of the Ernakulam Municipality under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution and the main prayer in the petition is for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichur (Ext. E) allowing the Rent Control Appeal, No.23 of 1953. The appeal was by the landlord whose petition for eviction, R.C.P. No.377 of 1951 was dismissed by the Rent Controller, by his order dated the 18th March 1953 (Ext. D). 2. Eviction was sought on the sole ground of default in the payment of rent, and after discussing the evidence the Rent Controller said: "Thus on going through the whole evidence in this case I do not find my way to uphold the contention of the petitioner that the counter-petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent. On the other hand what appears to me is that, when the counter petitioner took steps for getting the fair rent fixed the petitioner was so much annoyed and that he was trying to find out a loophole to get the counter-petitioner evicted from his house. The petitioner has not succeeded to show that there are arrears of rent by which he is entitled to evict the counter-petitioner. The petition is therefore rejected". 3. Clause.8(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, provides that where a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully payable to him by a tenant in respect of any building, he may deposit such rent "together with the fee required for the service of the notice referred to in sub-cl. (2), before such Authority and in such manner as may be notified by Government and shall report to the Controller the circumstances under which such deposit was made by him and may continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building before the same Authority and in the same manner, until the landlord signifies by a written notice to the tenant his willingness to accept the same". It is agreed that if the tenant was entitled to invoke the provisions of sub-cl. (1) of Cl. It is agreed that if the tenant was entitled to invoke the provisions of sub-cl. (1) of Cl. 8 he had as a matter of fact complied with all provisions of that sub clause, that the deposits he made were sufficient and in time, that there were no arrears to support the petition, and that the Rent Controller was right in rejecting R.C.P. No. 377 of 1951. 4. Under Sub-cl. (1) the tenant would have been entitled to deposit the rent with the Ernakulam Municipality the authority notified by the Government, only if there was a refusal by the land-lord and the contention of the landlord was that there was no such refusal. The main question, therefore, that had to be determined was whether the tenant was right in his contention that the landlord did refuse to accept the rent when it was offered to him in Thulam 1125. 5. The Rent Controller dealt with the matter as follows:- "From Ext. IX the certified copy of the Register of the Miscellaneous Receipt kept at the Ernakulam Municipality it is seen that the counter-petitioner has deposited Rs. 75 per month in the Municipality from 24.11.1949 to 29.6.1950 viz. 8 months (instalments) at the rate of Rs. 75 per instalment. Ext. XIV series (14 in number) are the receipts from the Municipality for having paid the rent from 31.10.1950 to 15.12.1951. A registered notice demanding the arrears of rent was sent by the petitioner on 30.10.1951. Ext. D is the copy of this notice. The counter-petitioner sent in Ext. E reply notice when he received Ext. D notice. In Ext. E he had stated that he had already deposited the rent for the building in the Municipality since the petitioner had refused to accept the rent when the same was tendered. One contention raised on behalf of the land-lord is that there was no refusal to accept the rent by the land-lord and hence the tenant had no right to deposit the rent in the Municipality under Cl. 8 of the Rent Control Order. But C.P.W.1 swears that the rent for the month of Thulam 1125 was taken to the land-lord and he did not accept the same, hence he deposited the rent in the Municipality. The fact that he deposited the rent for the month in the Municipality is borne out from the receipt. 8 of the Rent Control Order. But C.P.W.1 swears that the rent for the month of Thulam 1125 was taken to the land-lord and he did not accept the same, hence he deposited the rent in the Municipality. The fact that he deposited the rent for the month in the Municipality is borne out from the receipt. If the petitioner was willing to receive the same I do not see any reason as to why the counter-petitioner did not pay the same to the petitioner. He is not going to gain anything by depositing the rent in the Municipality. On the other hand after the rent is deposited in the municipality he has to put in a petition before the Rent Controller and has also to deposit the batta for issuing a notice to the land-lord regarding this deposit. The counter-petitioner had done the same in the particular instance. Ext. V is the petition put in by him before the Rent Controller regarding the deposit and Ext. VI is the certified copy of the Process Memo produced by him for issuing the notice to the land-lord. Again for the rent for the month of Vrischigom also the same course was adopted by the counter-petitioner and this is evidenced by Exts. VII and VIII. Therefore, if the petitioner was prepared to receive the rent there is no reason to think that the counter-petitioner will take all these troubles without paying the rent direct to the land-lord and getting the receipt. Under the circumstances the statement of the counter-petitioner that the petitioner did not receive the rent when it was tendered as he was annoyed at the counter-petitioner putting in a petition for fixing the fair rent appears to be true. I therefore find that there is no substance in the contention that the counter-petitioner has offended against R. 8 of the Rent Control Order when he has deposited the rent in the Municipality". 6. The Appellate Authority apparently was under the impression that even if there was a refusal by the landlord sufficient to justify the deposits made by the tenant those deposits should still be considered as insufficient, if notice of those deposits had not as a matter of fact been received by the landlord. 6. The Appellate Authority apparently was under the impression that even if there was a refusal by the landlord sufficient to justify the deposits made by the tenant those deposits should still be considered as insufficient, if notice of those deposits had not as a matter of fact been received by the landlord. The Authority stated that the rent for Thulam 1125 (due in Vrischigom 1125) "was not paid direct to the landlord but was deposited in the Municipality as disclosed from Ext. IX on 24.9.1949 corresponding to 9.4.1125 and proceeded to deal with the question as follows: "Now this deposit is attacked by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. Was intimation given to the appellant about the deposit before 15.4.1125? The learned Rent Controller who has discussed the evidence at length is silent about the fact whether actually notice was given to the land-lord about the deposit. The proper course for the respondent is to send the amount by M.O. if actually the rent was refused by the land-lord. He has not done this even though he has taken to this course before he started to make the second turn of deposits. The learned Rent Controller attempts to justify the action of the respondent in depositing the amount in the Municipality on the ground that it is highly improbable that the counter-petitioner would have taken all these trouble in depositing the amounts in the Municipality and putting in petitions for every deposit but for the refusal of the land-lord to accept the amount. It is not proved that by the time the rent for Thulam was tendered the appellant was aware that a petition for fixing the fair rent was put in by the respondent. The respondent has not made out a sufficient cause for depositing amounts in the Municipality and as such his deposits cannot be considered to be valid deposits. It was only as a reply to the notice issued by the appellant and also when refund was claimed the fact of deposit is seen brought to his notice. As there is no proper or valid tender on the part of the tenant it has to be presumed he defaulted payment of rent at least for the month of Thulam if not for a number of subsequent months. As there is no proper or valid tender on the part of the tenant it has to be presumed he defaulted payment of rent at least for the month of Thulam if not for a number of subsequent months. The rent control order is a very technical one and it has to be construed and acted upon strictly since it restricts the rights of the land-lord that were guaranteed by other enactments. Hair splitting calculations were made by the learned advocates appearing for both the parties to show and also to deny that there were arrears of rent. However technical it may be strictly speaking the respondent has committed arrears of rent and as such the land-lord is entitled for eviction of the tenant". 7. This is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the one question that had to be tackled, namely, whether there was a tender and refusal of the rent in Thulam 1125. It is agreed that if there was a tender and refusal as alleged by the tenant he is entitled to succeed and if there was no such tender and refusal the deposits he made will serve no useful purpose and that the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction. 8. The only sentence in the passage extracted above which comes anywhere near the problem is: "The respondent has not made out a sufficient cause for depositing amounts in the Municipality and as such his deposits cannot be considered to be valid deposits". The two sentences that immediately follow, however: "It was only as a reply to the notice issued by the appellant and also when refund was claimed the fact of deposit is seen brought to his notice. As there is no proper or valid tender on the part of the tenant it has to be presumed he defaulted payment of rent at least for the month of Thulam if not for a number of subsequent months". would indicate that what the appellate authority was considering was not the veracity of the tenant's version of a tender and refusal in Thulam 1125 but only the question as to whether a deposit of which no actual notice was received by the landlord can be considered as a valid tender of the rent sufficient to afford an effective discharge of the tenant's liability. That such was the approach will also be clear from the fact that nowhere in the appellate order is there a reference to or a discussion of the tenant's testimony in support of his case as C.P.W.1 which the Rent Controller had accepted or of the landlord to the contrary as Pw.1 in R.C.P. No. 377 of 1951. 9. In the light of what is stated above we are forced to the conclusion that there is no finding at all on the question as to whether there was a tender and refusal in Thulam 1125 and that the absence of a finding on a question so crucial is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings. It was of course open to the Appellate Authority either to endorse the finding of the Rent Controller or to differ from it, but as he has not chosen to adopt either of the two courses we cannot but quash the order passed and direct a fresh disposal. 10. The Appellate Authority heard the appeal at Ernakulam where the building is situate and the parties reside on 15.5.1954. Curiously he took 7 months to produce the appellate order and when it was eventually pronounced on 7.12.1954, it was not pronounced at Ernakulam but at Trichur and that without any notice to the parties concerned. Ext. L the tour programme, shows that the Appellate Authority was expected to be in Ernakulam from the 8th to the 11th December 1954 and there is nothing in his affidavit to explain why he chose to pronounce the order at Trichur on 7.12.54 instead of at Ernakulam during his camp from the 8th to the 11th December 1954. We cannot but insist on the necessity of a notice to the parties in these matters and the advisability of pronouncing the order as far as possible in the place where they reside. 11. We cannot but insist on the necessity of a notice to the parties in these matters and the advisability of pronouncing the order as far as possible in the place where they reside. 11. The landlord apparently thought that the unsatisfactory nature of the disposal might be attributed to the delay that had occurred and so has chosen to say in paragraph 6 of his affidavit dated 4.3.1955: "The contention that the decision is bad because there was a delay of about 7 months in deciding the appeal after the closing of the argument cannot stand in view of the fact that the 1st respondent takes elaborate notes during the arguments of cases and having various other duties also to be discharged by virtue of his office some lapse of time is inevitable". The Appellate Authority's own affidavit does not refer either to the elaborate character of the notes taken, or to any official pre-occupations as the cause for the delay. His statement is to the effect that he delayed the order because he wanted to dispose of another appeal relating to the same building as well, namely R.C.A. No. 101 of 1953. That was an appeal filed later and disposed of earlier-on 24.11.54 - and we are not satisfied that the pendency of that appeal affords sufficient justification for the delay that has occurred. 12. The Appellate Authority in directing the tenant to put his landlord in possession of the building said: "The respondent is given two months' time for the same". and in paragraph 5 of the affidavit the Appellate Authority has stated: "The petitioner's allegations that the pronouncement of my order at Trichur after some delay and without a posting notice is mala fide is denied. In this connection I beg to point out that I granted to the petitioner two months' time for vacating the property even though no such request was made on behalf of the petitioner when the appeal was heard". This at any rate indicates that the Appellate Authority was of the definite view that the interests of justice required the grant of a period of two months; and the benefit of that grant has been lost to the tenant for lack of information about the disposal of the appeal. 13. This at any rate indicates that the Appellate Authority was of the definite view that the interests of justice required the grant of a period of two months; and the benefit of that grant has been lost to the tenant for lack of information about the disposal of the appeal. 13. C1.16 of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order 1950, gives a revisional jurisdiction to the Government and normally we would have been inclined to direct a party aggrieved by a decision of the Appellate Authority to exhaust his remedy by way of a revision before he makes any approach to this Court. In the circumstances of this case, the long delay that has occurred, and in view of the fact that the two months' time granted by the Appellate Authority has already elapsed, we think we should interfere at this stage itself in exercise of our powers under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 14. It follows that a writ should issue quashing the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in Rent Control Appeal No. 23 of 1953 and directing him to hear and dispose of the Appeal afresh after due notice to the parties concerned. Order accordingly. Anything done in pursuance of the Appellate order hereby quashed will also, consequently, stand vacated and the position of the parties pending the disposal of the appeal will be the same as that obtaining immediately prior to the passing of the appellate order on 7.12.1954. 15. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The costs of the petitioner will be paid by the 2nd respondent, Advocate's fee Rs. 150. Allowed.