An application for quashing the order of the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act is governed by both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and a Letters Patent Appeal is competent against the High Court's order in such cases.

Headnote:
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - JURISDICTION - ORDER UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION - APPEALABILITY - POWER OF SUPERINTENDENCE - SCOPE - JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE - ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION - DISTINCTION - APPLICATION FOR QUASHING ORDER OF RENT CONTROLLER OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY - WHETHER UNDER ARTICLE 226 OR 227 - LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - COMPETENCY.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, the owner of a double-storey building with eight tenants, challenged the order of the District Judge, who dismissed his appeal against the Rent Controller's order fixing the standard rent for the entire building and apportioning it among the tenants. The appellant filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the District Judge's order. The petition was treated as one under Article 227 and dismissed by a Single Judge. The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the Single Judge's order.
Finding of the Court:

1. The Letters Patent Appeal is competent as the Single Judge's order, though made in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227, also amounted to dismissal of the appellant's petition under Article 226, which is appealable. 2. Article 227 of the Constitution confers judicial power of superintendence on High Courts, and the power of judicial interference under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. 3. When the same facts allow an aggrieved person to move the High Court under both Articles 226 and 227, it must be assumed that the petitioner intended to move primarily under Article 226, which has a wider scope than Article 227. 4. An application for quashing the order of the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act is governed by both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and a Letters Patent Appeal is competent against the High Court's order in such cases.
Issues: 1. Whether a Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order made by a Single Judge in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution? 2. Whether Article 227 of the Constitution confers judicial or administrative power of superintendence on High Courts? 3. Whether an application for quashing the order of the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act is governed by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The reference to Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is merely a descriptive reference and is not intended to suggest that an appeal would be competent if power of judicial superintendence has been exercised in circumstances not covered by Section 107. 2. Article 227 of the Constitution confers judicial power of superintendence on High Courts, and the power of judicial interference under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. 3. When the same facts allow an aggrieved person to move the High Court under both Articles 226 and 227, it must be assumed that the petitioner intended to move primarily under Article 226, which has a wider scope than Article 227.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal is competent, and the case is remanded to the Single Judge for decision on merits.

Judgment

Bishan Narain, J.

1. Raj Krishan Jain is the owner of a double storey building bearing Municipal Numbers 4231 and 4236. This building stands on plot No.11 which is part of Kothi No. 1, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Each portion consists of four flats and each flat has been given on rent to a different tenant. Thus eight, tenants occupy this building. On the application of some of the tenants for fixation of standard rent under section 7-A read with Schedule IV of the Delhi and Aimer Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, the Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 453/- for the whole building and then apportioned it between the various tenants. Dissatisfied with this order the landlord appealed to the District Judge, Delhi who dismissed it. The landlord then applied under Articles .226 and 227 of the Constitution to this Court seelang to quash the order of the District Judge. Falshaw J. treated this petition as one under Article 227 of the Constitution and dismissed it. The landlord has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to this appeal and that is that the order under appeal being one under Article 227 of the Constitution in exercise of power of superintendence was not appealable. The learned counsel for the appellant in reply has urged that a Letters Patent Appeal against the order under Article 227 is competent and in any case the judgment in question was made in substance under Article 226 of the Constitution and is appealable. The learned counsel for both sides have placed their reliance on the same statutory provisions and it will be convenient to describe them before dealing with the arguments.

3. The High Court of Judicature at Lahore was constituted by the Letters Patent dated 21st of March, 1919. Admittedly all the provisions of that Letters Patent apply to this Court also. Clause 10 of this Letters Patents allows an appeal from a decree or order made by a Single Judge. This right can be exercised only under certain conditions. The clause also enumerates certain exceptions to this right. We are only concerned in this cases with the exception under which no appeal lies if the Single Judge has made an order "in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of section 107 of the Government of India Act." This Section 107 reads:-

"Each of the High Courts has superintendence over all courts for the time being subject to its appellate jurisdiction, and may do any of the following things, that is to say, (a) call for returns;

(b) direct the transfer of any suit or appeal from any such court to any other court of equal or superior jurisdiction;

(d) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts; and

(e) settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff, attorneys, and all clerks and officers of Courts: Provided that such rules,. forms and tables shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of any Act for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval, in the case of the High Court of Calcutta, of the Governor-General in Council, and in other cases of the local Government."

This section was reproduced with certain changes in Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The provision contained in Section 107 (b) relating to transfer of suits and appeals was deleted. Sub-section (2) was introduced. It read:

"Nothing in this section, shall be construed as giving to a High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision."

Then the Parliament of England enacted the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and set up two independent Dominions (India and Pakistan). The Independence Act substituted various provisions for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1958 Supreme(P&H) 184

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTA.N.Bhandari and Bishan Narain JJ.Raj Kishan JainVersusTulsi Dass Etc.Letters Patent Appeal Case No. 5 of 1954,Decided On : DECEMBER 23, 1958

An application for quashing the order of the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act is governed by both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and a Letters Patent Appeal is competent against the High Court's order in such cases.

Cases Referred (5)

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Bhandari and Bishan Narain JJ.
Raj Kishan Jain
Versus
Tulsi Dass Etc.
Letters Patent Appeal Case No. 5 of 1954,
Decided On : DECEMBER 23, 1958