An order passed by the Controller under Order 21, Rule 11, read with Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Order 21, Rule 19, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is an order passed under the Act and is thus appealable under Section 38 of the Act.

( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for the quashing of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated August 19, 1971, in the following circumstances:

( 2 ) MESSRS Mussadi Lal and Sons, a Joint Hindu family firm, was the owner of premises bearing Municipal Nos. 170/171 -E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. An application for eviction of the petitioners under the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed by the landlords and an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller on September 21, 1967. The petitioners went in appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. During the pendency of this appeal, there was a partition of the joint Hindu family firm and the property in dispute fell to the share of Laxmi Narain respondent. An application was made on February 28, 1968, by Laxmi Narain under Order 21, Rule 11, read with Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Order 21, Rule 19, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the Additional Rent Controller praying that his name be substituted, recorded as a decree-holder and he may be permitted to execute the order of eviction. The petitioners opposed this application and, inter alia, objected to the maintainability of the same and challenged/ocms standi of Laxmi Narain respondent. The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated April 17, 1970, dismissed the application. Thereafter, Laxmi Narain, respondent, filed an appeal under Section 38 of the Act before the Rent Control Tribunal which was allowed, and the order of the Additional Rent Controller was set aside.

( 3 ) MR. C. P. Wig, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no appeal lay to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 38 of the Act in as much as the order of the Additional Rent Controller was not an order made under the Rent Control Act. He thus submits that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal and setting aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller.

( 4 ) MR. Daljit Singh, learned counsel for respondent Laxmi Narain, contends that the petitioners did not raise any objection about jurisdiction or the maintainability of the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and he should not be allowed to raise this objection for the first time in the present proceedings. He further contends that the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller was an order under this Act in view of Section 42 of the Act and so the appeal was competent. He also submits that powers under Article 227 resulted from impugned order.

( 5 ) THE scope of supervisory powers conferred on the High Court by Ie 227 of the Constitution of India came to be considered by I. D, Dua, (now the Hon ble Judge of the Supreme Court) in Shri Chander Bhan v. Chatter Singh and another, A. I. R. 1968 Delhi 229, wherein following a Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Sant Ram Chopra v. Jullundur Improvement Trust, (1966) 68 P. L. D. 988, it was observed :

". . . . . . . . . THE supervisory powers conferred by Article 227 are not greater than the powers under Article 226 and they are meant to be utilised in cases where grave injustice has resulted and are to be used generally, in keeping the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and the High Court would not be Justified in interfering with the findings of those Tribunals unless it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded are based on no material or where otherwise perverse. Assuming that from one point of view, powers under Article 227 of the Constitution may be cons dered to be slightly wider than those of Article 226, as the High Court may be empowered in some cases, inter alia, even to remand cases on the superintendence side, and in some respects narrower, as this power is limited only to seeing that the subordinate Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 S