WARYAM SINGH & Anr. v. AMARNATH & Anr.

WARYAM SINGH AND ANOTHER v. AMARNATH AND ANOTHER. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., B. K. MuKHERJF.A, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ. J Constitution of India, art,·. 227 and 241-High Court-Whe ther conferred power of judicial superintendence-Rent Controller the meaning of fudge-Whether Tribunals within and District art. 227-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (III of 1949) 13(2)(i), Proviso as extended Non-payment of arrears of rent on first hearing of application for ejectment-Legal effect thereof. to Himachal Pradesh, s. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh exercises jurisdiction in relation to the \Vhole of the territories of Himachal Pradesh. The Rent Control and diction under certainly the Constitution and tribunals the District Judge exercising juris· the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, are if not courts within the meaning of art. 227 of the territories of they' function within 1951 ·.Wal)'atn Singh and Another v. Amarnath and Anoti, er. Das]. 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ll954] Himachal Pra<lesh. Therefore art. 227(1) rca<l with art. 241 am fcrs on the Court of the Judicial Com1nissioner po\ver of superin ten<lencc over such tribunals. The \VorJs "in relation to vvhich" in art. 227 ( 1) qualify the 1~here is no force \vorJ "territories'' and not the \Vords "courts an<l tribunals". in the contention that cl. (2) of art. 227 only confers on the 1-Iigh Court adn1inistrative superintendence over the subordinate courts and tribunals because cl. (2) of :i.:·ticle is expressed t(; be to the generality of tho(! provi \vithout prejudice sions in cl. (1). The po\ver of superinten<lence conferred be exercised inost sparingly and only to keep the subordinate courts rity and not for correcting: 111crc errors. by art. 227 should in appropriate cases in order \Vithin the bounds of their autho tenants Tn vic\V of the a<linitted failure by the to pay the rent as pro\'illed by the rent dcc<l or at the first hearing of the cuurt to s. 13(2)(1) the lo\Vcr courts had act~d arbi under the pn.i\·iso for cjcctment against the trarily tenants incumbent on them to do under the la\V jurisdiction vested \vhich called for interference hy in the1n by la\V and it \Vas a case the Court of Judicial Co1nmissioner and it acted quite properly doing so. in refusing to 111ake \\·ho ha<l not done an<l thereby refused to exercise an order \Vhat was Moti Lal v. The State through Shriniati Sagratvati (I.L.R. fain Airways Ltd. v. 119521 1 All. 558 at p. 567) Sukumar :\lukherjee (A.LR. 1951 Cal. 193) referred to. and Dalmia C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1so1cTIO'<: Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1953. leave from Appeal by special the JuJgment anJ Decree, dated the 29th November, 1951, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for Himachal Pradesh at Simla in Civil Revision No. 52 of 1951. Gopal Singh for the appellants. S. C. Isaacs (Amar Nath Chana, with him) for the respondents. 1954. January 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs J .-This is an appeal by special leave against the order made on the 20th November, 1951, by the Judicial proceeJings '1rticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. of Himachal Commissioner instituted respondents Pradesh There is leading up no substantial the present dispute appeal. as to The appellants ' 1954 W aryam Singh and Anotlur ,., Arnarnath and Another. Das]. ' S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 567 they agreed tenants of a 11th October, 1947, the district of Mahasu ,certain shop premises situate in default of which payments Solan Bazar in in Himachal Pradesh. On executed a rent deed by which to pay an annual rent of Rs. 175 payable as to Rs. 50 on the 1st of Baisakh an<l as to the balance of Rs. 125 month of October, to recover respondents, as landlords, would be entitled lump sum. The the said rent the whole of tenancy cr~ated by for one that if the in the they must tenants desired to continue execute a further rent deed before the expiration of term. The appellants never executed any further rent deed but held over and continued -0ecupati~n of the demised premises. instance but it provided in occupation rent deed was only in one the years 1948 and 1949 and The appellants Jell into arrears with the payments .of rents due for respondents ma& applications the Rent Controller for eviction of the appellants under section 13 (2) (i) of the East Putijab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as extended to Himachal Pradesh. The appellants, how into court and claimed ever, paid up the arrears of rent to section 13(2) (i). The the benefit of daim was allowed and the said applications were ,dismissed accordingly on the 18th December, 1950. the proviso the year 1950. On The appellants again fell into arrears with the pay the 26th ment of·rent due for respondents served on the appel December, 1950, to pay whole of lants a notice calling upon the latter to do the· said rent forthwith but the appellants failed thereupon, on the 2nd January, ~o. The 1951, filed an application under section 13 (2) (i) for the eviction of the appellants on the ground of non payment of rent . respondents ... Thereafter, on the 10th January, 1951, the appel to the Rent Controller rent under section 4 of the said lants made an application the fixation of a fair Act. On the 25th January, 1951, the appellants filed their in the proceedings under section 13 . written statements 1954 Waryam Singh and Anoth1r v. Amanwtk and Analhtr. Das]. 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19541 the non-payment of rent and (2) .(i) admitting receipt of the notice but pleaded (i) that the respond reason of the rejection ents' application was barred by of the previous applications for eviction made by the respondents and (ii) that the present application could not be entertained in view of the pendency of application for fixation of a fair rent under section 4 of the said Act. On the 20th February, 1951, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- , ( 1) Whether the application in question was not judgment of the District the 18th December, 1950 ? Onus on entertainable in view of Judge, dated defendants. (2) If issue No. 1 party (tenants) not paid the they liable to be ejected ? Onus on plaintiffs. is not proved, had the · opposite rent and as such were liable By his for the already (3) Have therefore, not the opposite party in the said court they, fixation of rent for ejectment the decision on the application and what is its application pending effect on the said application ? Onus on defendants. the 29th May, 1951, judgment, dated Rent Controller held that as the previous applications the years 1948 related to non-payment of rents and 1949 the present application which was founded on non-payment of rent for 1950 was not barred under section 14 of the said Act but, although the fact of rent being the Rent Controller fit to make an order directing the appel did not demised premises. The reasons given by him were as follows:- in arrears was admitted, in possession of to put respondents is only rent by the non-payment of the rent when the "Regarding that he is waiting plea of the teaant fixation of fair there is the Rent Controller not enough ground for ejectment. A civil suit for the recovery of the rent would have been a more appro therefore priate method of obtaining dismiss the suit. The parties should bear their own costs." rent. I .. 1 954 i-Varyam Singh and Another v. Amarnath and Another. Das]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 569 The respondents preferred an appeal to the District. said Act. appeal Judge of Mahasu under section 15 of The observing- learned District Judge dismissed · "On behalf of the landlord it was urged that under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction section 13(2) of Act, as applied the Controller, to Himachal Pradesh, if it came to the finding that rent had not been paid, had no option but to direct tenant to put the land in possession. Undoubtedly, the correct legal position, but in the present case the non-payment of rent was due position created by the tenant filing an application for this case can fixing fair rent. I, therefore, think that be distinguished and does not fall within section 13 (2), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act." to a misapprehension of learned to pay the proviso in refusing for ejectment against The respondents moved the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, under articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order of Judicial Commissioner District Judge. The held that in view of the admitted failure rent as provided by the rent deed or at the first hearing to section 13 (2) (i) the of the court under to make courts below had acted arbitrarily tenants who had an order to do under not done what was Judicial Commissioner ference by the court of in order bounds of set aside the orders of the appel application for vacating the premises. three months' The appellants court on appeal by special court. the courts below and allowed incumbent on them that such a situation called for now come up before their authority. He accordingly the subordinate courts within ejectment leave obtained law and to keep advocate Learned appeal urges acted wholly without Rent Controller or 7-9± S. C.India/59 appearmg m support of learned Judicial Commissioner (1) the the District Judge exercising powers jurisdiction inasmuch as 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] 1954 Waryam Singh and Another v. Amarnath and Another. Das]. to the jurisdiction of under the Act was not amenable therefore, article 227 confers no the High Court and, power on the court of the Judicial Commissioner over the Rent Controller or the District Judge, and (2) that article 227 read with article 241 confers no power of judicial superintendence on the court of the Judicial Commissioner. jurisdiction in relation the District the Act are certainly Re. 1.-Tht court of the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh exercises territories of Himachal Pradesh. The the whole of the Judge exerc1smg Rent Controller and tribunals, jurisdiction under not courts, and they function within the territories of read with Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, article 227(1) Judicial article 241 Commissioner power to which" tribunals. obviously qualify the word "territories" and not words "courts and tribunals". of superintendence over relation the court of The words confers on "in is made to clause to the namre of superintendence conferred by the Rent Controller and jurisdiction under Re. 2.-The material part of article 227 substantially the provisions of section 107 of the Govern reproduces ment of India Act, 1915, except the power of superintendence has been extended by the article also tribunals. That District Judge exercising the Act tribunals cannot and has not been controverted. The only question raised is as the article. power of (2) of the article in support Reference that this article only confers on the of the contention High Court administrative superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals. We are unable to this contention because clause (2) is expressed accept to be without prejudice the generality of the provi (1). Further, the preponderance of in clause India was that section 107 which judicial opinion to section 15 of the High Courts was similar in terms Act, 1861, gave a power of judicial superintendence to the High Court apart from and independently of jurisdic provisions of other laws conferring revisional tion on the High Court. In this connection it has S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 571 be remembered that section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, was reproduced in the Government of India Act, 1935, as section 224. Section 224 of 1935 Act, however, introduced sub-section (2), which that nothing in the section should was new, providing be construed as giving the High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior court which was not otherwise subject to appeal or revision. The idea presumably was to nullify the effect of the deci sions of the different High Courts referred to above. Section 224 of the 1935 Act has been reproduced with certain modifications in article 227 of the Constitution. It section 224 of the 1935 Act has been omitted from article 227. This significant omission has been regarded by all High Courts in India before whom this question has arisen as having restored to power of it had under judicial section 15 of the High Courts Act, 1861, and section 107 of the Government of the cases referred to in Moti Lal v. The State through Shrimati Sagrawati(1 ). Our attention has not been drawn to any taken a different view and, as at case which has p~esent advised, we see no reason take a different v1ew. India Act, 1915. See the High Court that sub-section superintendence significant to note (2) to· conferred of superintendence ~y is, as pointed out by Harries C.J., m This <trticle 227 Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee(•), be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. As rightly pointed out by Judicial in the case before us the lower courts in Commissioner for ejectment acted refusing <trbitrarily. The lower courts realised the legal position to do what was by section 13 (2) but in effect declined thereby refused to (i) incumbent on It was, exercise interference by therrfore, a case which called for an the court of the Judicial Commissioner and it acted (t) (2) A.LR.195r Cal. r93. l.L.R. [r952] I All. 558 at p. 567. in them by law. jurisdiction vested them to do and to make an • 1 954 Waryam Singh and Another V• Amarnath and Another. Das]. • 1954 • 1¥ aryam Singh and Another ,. Amarnalh and Another. 1953 bee. 18. • 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954J in doing so. In our opinion there is no quite properly ground on which leave under article 136 we should interfere. The appeal, therefore, must stand dismissed with costs. in an appeal by special Agent for the appellants : M. M. Sinha. Agent for the respondent: K. L. Mehta. Appeal dismissed. BABURAO SHANTARAM MORE v. THE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER. [PATANJ ALI SASTRI C. J., s. R. DAS, VIVIAN BosE, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHADAS JT.J Constitution of India, art. 14-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodg ing House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947), s. 4- Bombay Housing Board (Amendment) Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951) inserting new s. 3-A in Bombay Housing Board Act (Act LXIX of 1948)-Whether ultra vires the Constitution. Held, that neither s. 4 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) nor the new s. 3-A inserted in Bombay Housing Board Act, (Act LXIX of 1948) is ultra vires art. 14 of the Constitution. the Amending Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951) The facts and argurnents are sufficiently stated Judgtnent. ORIGINAL JullisnicnoN PETITION No. 271 of 1952 : Petition for special to appeal No. 108 of 1952. Petition under article 32 of for special leave against the Constitution and the Judgment and the 7th July, 1952, of the High Court of (Chagla C. J. and Gajendra in Civil Revision Application No. 567 petition Order stated Judicature at Bombay gadkar J.) of 1952. /. B. Dadachanji for the petitioner. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General A. Mehta, with them) for the respondents . India, and (Porus India

#1953. December 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs J.