Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : These are 16 appeals which have been heard together. For facility of considering them on merits, it would be convenient to classify them into three categories. In the first category fall Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 184 of 1958. In the second category are two appeals, Civil Appeals Nos. 185 and 186 of 1958. In the third category falls Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1958. The appeals in the first two categories arise out of a judgment in revison rendered by the High Court of Punjab at Simla on August 26, 1954. That decision was reported in British Medical Stores v. Bhagirath Mal, ILR (1955) Punj 639. The appeal in the third category arises out of a short order of the said High Court dated March 7, 1956, by which it dismissed an application made by the appellant-tenant under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It appears that the order was based on the decision given by the High Court in the first two categories of cases. The appeals in the first two categories have been brought to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court, and have been consolidated by an order made by the said Court. Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1958 has been brought to this Court in pursuance of special leave granted by this Court on November 19, 1956.

2. The reason why these appeals have been put in three categories is this. The judgment of the High Court against which these appeals are really directed is the judgment rendered in the first two categories of cases (reported in ILR (1955) Punj 639. That judgment related to four sets of buildings of Chandni Chowk in Delhi. In Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 186, we are concerned with two of these buildings owned by the landlord Bhagirath Mal, who has since died and is now represented by some of the respondents. For convenience, however, we shall refer to him as the landlord. The two buildings we are concerned with are called (1) "Chemists Market", also known as "Medicine Market", and (2) Prem Building ". Both these buildings are part of a colony called "Bhagirath Colony". Several tenants took on rent flats or rooms in the said buildings and the question which fell for determination was the fair and standard rent payable for the said flats or rooms under S. 7A of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 (Act XIX of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Control Act, l947. In the first two categories of appeals, the main point for consideration before us is whether the judgment rendered by the High Court on August 26, 1954, was correct, the High Court having held that the whole proceedings taken before the Rent Controller were ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The reasons given for this finding by the High Court were not quite the same in respect of the two buildings ; somewhat different reasons were given in the cases of the two tenants in the Prem Building. Therefore, it would be convenient to deal with the main judgment of the High Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 184 of 1958 of the tenants in the building known as "Chemists Market". We shall then deal with the special considerations arising in the two appeals preferred by the tenants of the "Prem Building. Lastly, we shall deal with Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1958 which relates to a different building altogether belonging to a different proprietor, namely two ground-floor flats of a house on plot No. 20, Block no. 13 in Western Extension Area, Karolbagh, New Delhi. We shall later state the facts of that appeal, but it is sufficient to state here that the application for fixation of standard rent for the flats in the Karolbagh house was dismissed on the ground that the High Court had held earlier in the first two categories of cases, that S. 7A of the Control Act, 1947 was unconstitutional and void after the coming into force of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950.

Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 184 of 1958.

3. Having made these preliminary remarks with regard to the classification of the appeals, we proceed now to state the facts with