Section 7A of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act is constitutional. Furthermore, special leave granted ex parte despite delay should not be revoked if no facts were suppressed and no lower court was bypassed, although notice to respondents is generally recommended before condoning such delays.

Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court holding that S.7A of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) was unconstitutional as violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.14 of the Constitution.

2. The first respondent Ram Nath owns a building in Delhi of which, among others the appellant-company was a tenant. The appellant moved the Rent Controller, Delhi, under S. 7A of the Act for fixation of the fair rent of the portion in its occupation. These proceedings had chequered history which it is not material to set out, but suffice it to say that the Rent Controller, Delhi, computed the fair rent for the entire building at Rs. 565/- p.m. and the fair rent payable by the appellant at Rs. 146/- per month. It is necessary to mention that under the Act the Rent Controller would have had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant s application for the fixation of fair rent and for so fixing it only if the construction of the building in question was completed after March 24, 1947, but if the construction of the building was completed earlier the ordinary, Civil Courts and not the Rent Controller would have had jurisdiction to determine the matter. The date of the completion of the first respondent s building therefore loomed large in the enquiry before the Rent Controller and that authority recorded a finding on this matter adverse to the first respondent in his order.

3. The landlord-first respondent preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller to the learned District Judge, Delhi, but the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter he moved the High Court of the Punjab under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the correctness and propriety of every finding by the Rent Controller and of the District Judge on appeal. This petition came on for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court had sometime previously held in another batch of cases ( British Medical Stores v. Bhagirath Mal , ((S) AIR 1955 Punj 5)) arising under the Act, that S. 7A was unconstitutional and void and following this decision he allowed the petition of the first respondent and set aside the order of the Rent Controller as without jurisdiction, without considering the other matters which would arise if the section was valid and the Rent Controller had jurisdiction. From this decision of learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent to a Division Bench.

4. Meanwhile the judgment in British Medical Stores v. Bhagirath Mal , Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 186 of 1958 was brought up by way of appeal to this Court and as the appeal was getting ready to be heard, the appellants applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court even during the pendency in the High Court, of the appeal by it under the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent appeal was thereafter withdrawn by the appellant.

5. The appeal in the British Medical Stores case was heard by this Court and the same was allowed by a judgment dated August 2, 1961 and this Court held reversing the judgment of the Punjab High Court that S. 7A of the Act was valid, Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 186 of 1953

6. It would thus be seen that the only point which the learned Judge considered and on which the revision petition of the landlord - first respondent was allowed no longer subsists and hence the appellant is entitled to have the appeal allowed. As the learned Single Judge did not consider the other objections raised by the first respondent to the order of the Controller fixing the standard fair rent payable by the appellant, the appeal has to be remanded to the High Court for being dealt with according to law.

7. Before concluding it is necessary to advert to a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal raised by learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent. His submission was that the special leave whi