The Act confers special jurisdiction on the appellate tribunal, and the High Court cannot interfere with orders passed by the tribunal under S. 115 of the Code.

G. N. DAS, J. :- The above cases were heard together. They arise out of applications under S. 115, Civil P.C., hereinafter called the Code. The Orders complained of in these Rules were passed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta hereinafter called the Chief Judge, modifying on appeal the orders made by the Additional Rent Controller fixing the standard rent of certain premises under the provisions of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act.

2. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that this Court has no power to interfere with the orders complained of under S. 115 of the Code. His contention is that exercise of this power under S. 115 of the Code has been excluded by S. 37(6) and (7) of the Act.

3. It has not been disputed by Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Provincial Legislature may, by appropriate legislation, take away the powers of this Court to interfere under S. 115 of the Code with an order passed by a Judicial Tribunal of Civil Jurisdiction.

4. In order to deal with this matter, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act.

5. Section 32(1) of the Act impliedly provides for an appeal from an order of the Rent Controller, and requires it to be presented either to the Chief Judge or to the District Judge.

6. Section 32(2) empowers the Provincial Government to appoint a person who has exercised the powers of a District Judge to hear appeals, presented to the Chief Judge and a Judicial Officer not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge to hear appeals presented to the District Judge.

7. For the sake of brevity, I shall hereinafter call the person appointed by the Provincial Government as the appointed Judge. 8. Section 32(3) confers on the Chief Judge or the District Judge the powers to transfer and withdraw cases to or from the appointed Judge.

9. Section 32(4) lays down the procedure to be followed in hearing an appeal.

10. Section 32(5) provides for review.

11. Section 32(6) empowers the High Court to revise an order imposing or confirming an order passed by the Controller imposing a fine under S. 20, S. 33 or S. 34 when the amount of fine is not less than five hundred rupees. The period of limitation is fixed at 30 days.

12. Section 32(7) then provides that "all decisions of the Chief Judge, or the District Judge, or a person appointed under sub-s (2), as the case may be, shall, subject to the provisions of sub-s. (6), be final."

13. According to the large majority of decisions, the word final means not appealable but open to revision or review. Partha Saradhi Naidu v. Koteswara Rao, 47 Mad. 369 : (AIR (11) 1924 Mad 561 F.B.) Phani Bhutan v. Sarat Kumar, 40 C. W. N. 124 : (AIR (22) 1935 Cal. 773) and Manager, Spring Mills Ltd, v. C.D. Ambekar, 51 Bom. L. R. 148 : (AIR (36) 1949 Bom. 188).

14. In my opinion the words "subject to the provisions of sub-s. (6)" necessarily exclude whatever other powers of revision the High Court may possess.

15. Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner submitted that the insertion of sub-s. (6) was made ex abudanti cautela with a view to provide against a possible contention that as the orders referred to were of a quasi criminal nature, revision was barred. This contention cannot be accepted. The High Court has ample powers of revision even in regard to orders of quasi criminal nature in appropriate cases.

16. Mr. Mukherjee next contended that the word revise has been used in a wide sense and includes an appeal. This contention cannot also be accepted because in S. 32 itself, the Act used the words, "appeal, review and revision."

17. It was lastly contended that sub-s. (6) is wider in scope than s. 115 of the Code and was inserted with a view to confer on the High Court wider powers of revision in cases of a quasi criminal nature. This contention cannot also be accepted because the words "subject to the provisions of sub-s. (6)" clearly im