The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rent Controller and the 'Appellate Authority' appointed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act did not constitute civil Courts subordinate to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and their orders were not subject to revision by the High Court.

ORDER OF REFERENCE

KHOSLA, J. - This petition has arisen out of an order made by the District Judge of Ambala under S.15, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947. Mr. Soni who appeared on behalf of the respondents raised a preliminary point that no revision lay to this Court. He drew my attention to two recent judgments of Achhru Ram, J. in which it was held that the provisions of S.15, Rent Restriction Act bar a revision petition to the High Court (Rakha Ram v. Seth Ishar Singh, civil Revision No.116 of 1948 and Santi Saroop v. Ram Lal, Civil Revision No.265 of 1948.)

2. The Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, was promulgated by the Governor of the Punjab under the provisions of S.95, Government of India Act, 1935, at a time when the Governor had assumed to himself all powers vested in the Provincial Legislature. The Act provides for the appointment of Rent Controllers entrusted with the business of determining "fair rent" between landlord and tenant. Section 15 which provides for appeals against the orders of the Rent Controller is in the following terms:

15. (1)(a) The Provincial Government may, by a general or special order by notification confer on such officers and authorities, as they think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act, in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.

(b) any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of such order or such longer period as the appellate authority may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction.

(2) * * * *

(3) The appellate authority shall decide the appeal after sending for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller.

(4) The decision of the appellate authority and subject only to such decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law whether in a suit for other proceeding by way of appeal or revision.

The contention of Mr. Soni is that cl.(4) of this section bars the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in so far as the orders of the appellate authority" are concerned. He relied upon a number of cases in support of his argument. In K.A.M. Mohideen v. Bukshi Ram, 3 Rang. 410: (AIR (13) 1926 Rang. 33 F.B.) and H.A. Aziz v. Kilyoboy, 4 Rang. 304 (AIR (14) 1927 Rang. 1 F.B.), it was held that a Rent Controller appointed under S.18, Rangoon Rent Act acted as a persona designate and not as a Court. Under S.18, the decision of the Controller was to be final. A Rent Controller is a special authority appointed for a specific purpose and, even though he decides disputes of a civil nature, be cannot (so it was argued before me) became a subordinate Court within the meaning of S.115, Civil P.C.In Balaji Sakharam v. Merwanji, 21 Bom.279 and Gangadhar v. Hubli Municipality, 50 Bom. 357: (AIR (13) 1926 Bom. 344), it was held that the District Judge hearing an application under S.22, Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, is not a Court and the High Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction under S.115, Civil P.C. to revise his order. In Balakrishna v. Collector of Bombay, 47 Bom. 699: (AIR (10) 1923 Bom. 290), it was held that a Collector acting under S.18, Land Acquisition Act was not a Court.

3. On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. Partap Singh who appeared on behalf of the appellant that the Rent Controller was an authority appointed by a statute to perform judicial functions. His business was to decide disputes of a civil nature and the procedure laid down was the procedure prescribed by the Civil P.C.The appellate authority was similarly entrusted with judicial functions. He had the right to call for witnesses under the provisions of the Civil P.C. and, ther