Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the owner of a building situate on the side of the T. D. Road, Ernakulam, consisting of two flats. The ground floor flat fell vacant and the petitioner gave notice of the vacancy to the 1st respondent, the Accommodation Controller, on 15-8-1968 by the original of Ext. P-3. The 1st respondent passed Ex. P-1 order on 28-8-1968 alloting the flat to the 2nd respondent and directing the petitioner to hand over the key of the building to the 2nd respondent "on terms and conditions to be agreed to between the parties." On 31-8-1968, after receipt of Ex. P-1 order the petitioner went to the office of the 2nd respondent. As the 2nd respondent was not in his office, he left a letter in the office addressed to the 2nd respondent stating that he (the petitioner) is prepared to let the building to the 2nd respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- and requesting him for an advance of Rs. 450/-. Ex.P-4 is a copy of that letter. The petitioner also met the 2nd respondent in the Air Port that evening and told him that he was ready to hand over the key and receive the advance The petitioner says that the 2nd respondent refused to accept the key or give the advance. On 5-9-1968 petitioner received a letter dated 2-9-1968 from the Personal Assistant to the 2nd respondent requesting the petitioner to make available the relevant records showing the rent paid by the previous tenant. Ex. P-5 is a copy of that letter. In reply to Ex. P-5 the petitioner sent a communication stating that since the 2nd respondent had not evinced his willingness to take the building on rent by accepting the key on 31-8-1968, there is nothing more to be done in the matter. On 14-9-1968 petitioner received a letter from the Accommodation Controller dated 10-9-1968 stating that if the petitioner fails to put the 2nd respondent in possession of the building, and let the building to some other person, such person would be dispossessed under S.4(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and that the rent of the building is provisionally fixed at Rs. 350/-. Ex. P-6 is a copy of that letter. Petitioner says that even before the receipt of Ex. 350/-. Ex. P-6 is a copy of that letter. Petitioner says that even before the receipt of Ex. P6 he had let the building to the 3rd respondent and that she is living there with her children and informed the Accommodation Controller about it in his reply to Ex. P6. The Accommodation Controller thereafter issued Ex. P-2 notice dated 23-9-1968 to the 3rd respondent, informing her that if she fails to give possession of the building to the Revenue Inspector, action would be taken under S.4(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act and that she would be summarily evicted from the building. A copy of this notice was also sent to the petitioner by the 1st respondent. 2. The petitioner seeks to quash Exs. P-1 and P-6 proceedings as well as Ext. P-2 notice by an appropriate writ or order. 3. The main contention of the petitioner before me was that Ex.P-1 order is bad for the reason that the 1st respondent had no authority under S.4(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act to allot the building to the 2nd respondent, and therefore, the petitioner was competent to let the building to the 3rd respondent. 3. The main contention of the petitioner before me was that Ex.P-1 order is bad for the reason that the 1st respondent had no authority under S.4(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act to allot the building to the 2nd respondent, and therefore, the petitioner was competent to let the building to the 3rd respondent. S.4(3) reads: "If, within fifteen days of the receipt by the Accommodation Controller of a notice under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the Accommodation Controller does not intimate to the land lord in writing that the building is required for the purpose of the State or Central Government or of any local authority or of any public institution or for the occupation of any officer of such Government, or local authority or for the occupation of such class of non-officials as may be prescribed having regard to the importance of their service to society, the landlord shall be at liberty to let the building to any tenant or to occupy it himself." It is clear from the sub-section that if the Accommodation Controller did not intimate within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice of vacancy that the building was required for the purposes of the State or Central Government or of any local authority of or any public institution or for the occupation of any officer of such government or local authority or for the occupation of such class of non-officials as may be prescribed, the landlord was at liberty to let the building to any tenant or occupy it himself. It is not disputed that the government have not passed any rules prescribing the class of non-officials to whom the Accommodation Controller may allot a building. So, the question for consideration is whether the 2nd respondent is an officer of the Central or State Government or of a local authority. The 2nd respondent is the Chairman of the Cardamom Board. The Cardamom Board is established under S.4 of the Cardamom Act (Act 42 of 1965) by the Central Government. S.4 provides that the Board shall be a body corporate, that it will have perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract, and shall by the said name sue and be sued. The Board shall consist of a Chairman to be appointed by the Central Government. S.4 provides that the Board shall be a body corporate, that it will have perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract, and shall by the said name sue and be sued. The Board shall consist of a Chairman to be appointed by the Central Government. The other members of the Board shall consist of: "(b) the Director of Cardamom Development, ex-officio; (c) three Members of Parliament of whom two shall be elected by the House of the People and one by the Council of States; (d) three members to represent respectively the Ministries of the Central Government dealing with (i) commerce, (ii) agriculture, and (iii) finance; (e) such number of other members not exceeding fifteen as the Central Government may think expedient,to be appointed by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette from among persons who are in its opinion capable of representing (i) the Governments of the principal cardamom-growing States; (ii) the cardamom-growing interests; (iii) the cardamom trade interests; (iv) the interests of labour; (v) the consumers; and (vi) such other persons or class of persons who, in the opinion of the Central Government, ought to be represented on the Board." 4. The Chairman shall be entitled to such salary and allowances as may be fixed by the Central Government. His conditions of service in respect of leave, pension, provident fund, and other matters are also to be fixed by the Central Government (see S.6). S.17 provides that there shall be a fund to be called the "Cardamom Fund" and that there shall be credited to the fund the proceeds of the case made over to the Board by the Central Government, all fees levied and collected in respect of licences issued under the Act, any other fee that may be levied and collected by the Board under the Act or the rules made thereunder, and any grants or loans that may be made by the Central Government or any institution for the purpose of the Act. The fund shall be utilised for meeting the salaries, allowances and other remuneration of the officers and other employees of the Board and for meeting the other administrative expenses of the Board. The fund shall be utilised for meeting the salaries, allowances and other remuneration of the officers and other employees of the Board and for meeting the other administrative expenses of the Board. S.32 gives power to the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act; and one of the matters on which rules can be framed by the Central Government is with regard to the staff that may be employed by the Board, and the pay and allowances, leave and other conditions of service of the officers other than those appointed by the Central Government and other employees of the Board. S.22 provides that the Board shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the Central Government for the efficient administration of the Act. 5. R.26 of the Rules framed under the Act provides: "All expenditure on account of salaries, allowances, pension, leave salary and other contributions, if any, of the Chairman and other officers appointed under S.7 of the Act shall be met from the Board's funds". I do not think that the Chairman is an officer of the Central Government merely because he is appointed by the Central Government or because the terms and conditions of his service are fixed by that Government. 6. In Narayanaswamy v. Krishnamurthi, AIR. 1958 Mad. 343, the question whether an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India is a servant of the government came up for consideration and in considering the question Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., as he then was, said: "Pausing here, we might summarise the position and analyse the tests for determining the constitutional position of a Public Corporation as either a department of Government or as a servant of the State. If the statute in terms answered the question, as it did in the case of the Central Land Board under the Country and Town Planning Act, 1947, the need for any further enquiry is obviated. But in the absence of such statutory declaration or provision, the intention of Parliament has to be gathered from the provisions of the statute constituting the Corporation. These provisions have to be judged in the light of the following. But in the absence of such statutory declaration or provision, the intention of Parliament has to be gathered from the provisions of the statute constituting the Corporation. These provisions have to be judged in the light of the following. First the incorporation of the body though not determinative is of some significance, as an indication by Parliament of its intention to create a legal entity with a personality of its own, distinct from the State; secondly the degree of control exercised by the Minister over the functioning of the Corporation is a very relevant factor, a complete dependence on him making it as really a governmental body, while comparative freedom to pursue its administration being treated as an element negativing an intention to constitute it a Government agent, this semiautonomy deriving from the desire to avoid plenary Parliamentary control over the details of its normal administration. Third is the degree of dependence of the Corporation on the Government for its financial needs. Lastly we consider the functional or the historical aspect some of the decisions laying stress on whether the function discharged by the Corporation could really be treated as historically as a pure governmental function one which pertained to sovereignty or whether it was the administration of a matter merely of local or regional concern". 7. In Suprasad v. State Bank of India AIR. 1962 Cal.72 the question was whether an employee of the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank Act was a civil servant under the State or Union. It was held that he was only an employee of a limited company incorporated under a special statute. In Prafulla Kumar v. Calcutta S. T. Corporation AIR. 1963 Cal. 116 the question was whether an employee of the Road Transport Corporation is an officer of the Government and it was observed: "From the aforementioned cases the following principles may be deduced, namely, (1) a statutory Corporation has a separate and independent existence and is a different entity from the Union or the State Government with its own property and its own fund and the employees of the Corporation do not hold civil post under the Union or the State, (2) it makes little difference in this respect, even though the Union or the State holds the majority share of the Corporation and controls its administration by policy directives or otherwise. (3) it also makes little difference if such a statutory Corporation imitates or adopts the Fundamental Rules to govern the service conditions of the employees, (4) although the ownership, control and management of the statutory Corporation may be, in fact, vested in the Union or State, yet then in the eye of law the Corporation is its own master and is a separate entity and its employees do not hold any'civil post under the Union or the State', (5) if, however, the State or the Union controls a post under a statutory Corporation is such a manner that it can create or abolish the post or can regulate the conditions subject to which the post is or will be held and if the Union or the State pays the holder of the post out of its own funds, then although the post carries the name of an office of the statutory Corporation, it may be a civil post under the State or the Union." See also the ruling in A.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. LT. Officer MR. 1962 And Prad. 323. 8. It was contended that the 2nd respondent was originally employed under the Rubber Board and that he is on deputation to the Cardamom Board, and so, he is an officer of the Central Government. The Rubber Board constituted under the Rubber Act of 1947 is also an autonomous Corporation, and the 2nd respondent is not an officer of the Central Government merely because he was functioning as the Rubber Production Commissioner and Director of Research under the Rubber Board. Counsel for the 2nd respondent relied upon Exs. R-1 to R-3 to show that the 2nd respondent is an officer of the Central Government, but they do not, in my opinion, throw any light on this question. Counsel also relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Asssam v. Kanak Chandra, AIR. 1967 SC. 884, and contended that just as the Mauzadar there, the 2nd respondent is also an officer of the Government of India. The facts of that case are: One Kanak Chandra Dutta was appointed as Mauzadar of Mancotta Mouza in the Dibrugarh Sub Division of Lakhimpur District. His father, before his death, was the Mauzadar of Mancotta Mouza for about 52 years from 1885 to 1938. The facts of that case are: One Kanak Chandra Dutta was appointed as Mauzadar of Mancotta Mouza in the Dibrugarh Sub Division of Lakhimpur District. His father, before his death, was the Mauzadar of Mancotta Mouza for about 52 years from 1885 to 1938. Under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, the respondent was suspended on August 22,1949 and was dismissed from the office of the Mauzadar on July 4,1962. The dismissal was made without following the provisions of Art.311 (2) of the Constitution. On a writ petition filed by Kanak Chandra Dutta the High Court of Assam held that he held a civil post under the Government and was entitled to the protection of Art.311 (2). On appeal the Supreme Court upheld the finding of the High Court. 9. From the nature of the functions performed by the Mauzadar and from the manner in which he was appointed, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that he was holding a civil post under the Government. That decision can hardly afford any guidance for the decision of this case. 10. Counsel also relied on Maulana Abdul Shakur v. Rikhabchand AIR. 1958 SC. 52 and submitted that the fact that the salary of the 2nd respondent is drawn from the fund of the Cardamom Board is immaterial for deciding the question whether he is an officer of the Central Government or not. But, I think that although that may not be decisive, it has great relevancy for deciding the question whether the 2nd respondent is an officer of the Government of India. Counsel also relied on the definition of the words'Board's employee' in the Cardamom Board (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, framed under S.33 (2) (a) of the Cardamom Act and said that the 2nd respondent is not an employees of the Board. That definition reads: "Board's employee' means any person employed under the Board other than the Chairman, the officers appointed under S.7 (1) and S.7 (2) of the Cardamom Act, 1955, and the Government Officers, lent to the Board." The question here is not whether the 2nd respondent is an employee of the Board but whether he is an officer of he Government of India. The fact that under the rules the Chairman is not considered as an employee of the Board would not show that he is an officer of the Government of India. The fact that under the rules the Chairman is not considered as an employee of the Board would not show that he is an officer of the Government of India. As I have already said, the Board is an autonomous body. It is a juritic person in the eye of the law. I do not think that Government could under its rule making power abolish the post. A person can be an officer of the Board without being the 'Board's employee'. That, I think is clear from S.17 of the Act itself. So, even if the 2nd respondent is not employee of the Board it does not follow that he is not an officer of the Board. 11. If the 2nd respondent is not an officer of the Central Government, as the petitioner did not receive intimation within fifteen days of the notice of vacancy that the building is required for the purposes or for persons mentioned in S.4 (3), it was open to the petitioner to have 1st the building to the 3rd respondent. In other words, the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to allot the building to the2nd respondent, as he is not an officer of the Central or State Government or of a local authority. So, I quash Ex. P-1 order. In this view, Ex. P-6 order, and Ex. P-2 notice, must be quashed and I do so. The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated. No costs.