The power to transfer cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is specifically conferred on the High Court under Art. 228, and this power does not extend to tribunals.

P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition raises an important question as to the power of the High Court under Arts. and 228, Constitution of India to transfer an application filed under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act from the file of the Rent Controller to the High Court.

( 2 ) THE second respondent before the Rent Controller is the petitioner is this petition. The respondent in the present petition filed B. A. P. No. 3 of 1953 on the file of Rent Controller, Gudivada, under S. 4, Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, on 11. 2. 1953 for the fixation of fair rent. On 24. 3. 1953, the petitioner herein filed his counter. The petition was enquired into. The respondents counsel concluded his arguments on 27. 10. 1954. On that day, the respondent (Petitioner herein) filed an application under O. 27-A, Civil P. C. before the House Rent Controller. That petition is pending. On 29. 10. 1954 the present petition has been filed in this Court.

( 3 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents petition is not maintainable, that S. 4, Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, violates the fundamental rights of every citizen guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution, that the said section places restrictions that are not reasonable and are not justified in public interest ; that the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and in particular S. 4 of the said Act is ultra virew the powers of the Legislature. It is further submitted that on the formation of the Andhra State, the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act has ceased to be in force in the Andhra State and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to proceed with a petition under S. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the High Court may withdraw the proceedings in B. A. P. No. 3 of 1953 on the file of the Rent Controller, Gudivada to the file of the High Court.

( 4 ) THE respondent filed a counter, wherein it is alleged that he has been declared to be a tenant entitled to the benefit of the Rent Control Act, not merely by the Subordinate Judges Court but also by the High Court of Madras in C. M. A. Nos. 87 and 88 of 1953 ; that the application for the withdrawal of the proceedings is belated, that the question touching the constitutional validity of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act have not been raised so far before the House Rent Controller ; that such questions are foreign to the scope of these proceedings and that this petition has been filed mala fide with the motive of putting of the determination of the fair rent.

( 5 ) THE relevant articles of the Constitution of India may be extracted :"227 (1) : Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generally of the foregoing provision, the High Court may - (a) call for returns from such courts : (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the Officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the Sheriff and all clerks and Officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein : Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under Cl. (2) or Cl. (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of any law for the time being in force and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. 228 : If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a court subordinate to it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution, the determination of which is necessary for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document