SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th January, 1965
K. SUBBA RAO, ACTG. C.J.I., RAGHUBAR DAYAL, R.S. BACHAWAT AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
South Asia Industries (P) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
S. B. Sarup Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 726 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Messrs. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and Veda Vyasa, Senior Advocates (Messr. P.N. Chaddha, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates, with them), for Appellant; Mr. Gopal Singh Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2; Messrs Gurcharan Singh Bakshi and Gopal Singh, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.
L. P. A. No. 85-D of 1963, dated 11-12-1963-Punj.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - Maintainability - Appeal from judgment of single Judge of High Court in second appeal under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Whether lies to Division Bench of High Court under cl. 10 of Letters Patent.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, South Asia Industries (Private) Ltd., filed an appeal in the High Court of Punjab under S. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958), against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which had allowed the petition of the respondents, the owners of the premises, for the eviction of the appellant. The said second appeal was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court. The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge to a Division Bench of the said High Court under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent. That appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on the ground that it was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court in a second appeal under S. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Issues: Whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court in a second appeal under S. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Letters Patent and the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and held that: * Under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent, an appeal lies from the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court to a Division Bench of the High Court, unless the judgment is made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. * Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, confers a right of appeal from an order of the Rent Control Tribunal to the High Court, but S. 43 of the Act makes the judgment of a single Judge in such an appeal final. * However, S. 43 of the Act does not take away the right of appeal under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent, as the expression "final" in S. 43 of the Act means that no further appeal is contemplated against the order passed on appeal against the order of the Tribunal, but it does not bar an appeal under the Letters Patent.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, Actg. C.J. :This appeal by certificate raises the question whether an appeal lies under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore, to a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge of the said High Court in a second appeal under S. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958), hereinafter called the Act.
2. The facts relevant to the question raised may be briefly stated. The respondents are the owners of plot No. 5, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. Private Lt. took a lease of the same under a lease deed dated March 1, 1956. Messrs. Allen Berry and Co. assigned their interest under the said lease deed to South Asia Industries (Private) Ltd., the appellant herein. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application before the Controller, Delhi, under S. 14 of the Act for the eviction of the appellant from the said premises on the ground that Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. unauthorizedly assigned the said premises in favour of the appellant. The Controller by his order dated October 10, 1962; allowed the petition. On January 23, 1963, the appeal filed by the appellant against the said order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. Against the said order of the Tribunal the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Punjab under S. 39 of the Act. The said second appeal was dismissed on May 10, 1963, by Harbans Singh, J. The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge to Division Bench of the said High Court under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent. That appeal came up for disposal before a Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the same on the ground that it was not maintainable. Hence the present appeal.
3. Mr. A. Viswanatha Sastri, learned counsel for the appellant raised before us the following points; (1) Section 39 of the Act confers a right of appeal from an order of the Rent Control Tribunal to the High Court and, therefore, when once that appeal reaches the High Court, it has to exercise the jurisdiction in the same manner as it exercises other appellate jurisdiction, that is to say the judgment of a single Judge in that appeal becomes subject to an appeal to the High Court under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent, (2) S. 43 of the Act is only a bar to initiate collateral proceedings for the purpose of questioning the order of the Tribunal and it does not make the judgment of a single Judge in an appeal under S. 39 of the Act final; and, that apart, a Letters Patent appeal is not a separate appeal to the High Court but is only, in effect, the continuation of the same appeal in the High Court.
4. The arguments of M/s. Gopal Singh and Gurcharan Singh Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondents may be summarized thus : The Act confers a special jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain an appeal; and the judgment in such an appeal does not attract cl. 10 of the Letters Patent. That apart, the first part of cl. 10 of the Letters Patent on which the appellant relies only provides for an appeal against the judgment of a single Judge made in the exercise of the High Court s original jurisdiction, and even if it is wide enough to comprehend a judgment made in appellate jurisdiction, it should be an appeal against the order of a Court. In the instant case the Tribunal functioning under the Act is not a Court and, therefore the judgment passed by a single Judge of the High Court against the judgment of such a Tribunal is not subject to letters Patent appeal under the said clause. In any view, S. 43 of the Act makes the judgment of a single Judge made in an appeal final and therefore, to that extent, cl. 10 of the Letters Patent has been modified by the appropriate Legislature.
5. Let us at the outset consider the relevant provisions uninfluenced by judicial decisions. At this stage it will be convenient to read the material provisions of the Letters Patent governing the Punjab High Court.
Cl
referred : National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd.
Hanskumar Kishan Chand v. Union of India
UNION OF INDIA v. Mohindra Supply Co.
Ladii Parshad v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.
Secy. of State v. Chellikani Rama Rao
Secy. of State v. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.