Waryam Singh & ANR Vs. Amarnath
& ANR  INSC 4 (19 January 1954)
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)
BOSE, VIVIAN HASAN, GHULAM
CITATION: 1954 AIR 215 1954 SCR 565
CITATOR INFO :
R 1955 SC 233 (20) R 1958 SC 321 (6) R 1958
SC 398 (30) F 1965 SC1994 (18) F 1972 SC1598 (12) R 1975 SC1297 (7) R 1978 SC
45 (5) RF 1979 SC 1 (11) RF 1986 SC1272 (102) F 1987 SC 117 (17)
Constitution of India, arts. 227 and 241-High
Court-Whether conferred power of judicial superintendence-Rent Controller and
District Judge-Whether Tribunals within the meaning of art. 227-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (III of 1949 as extended to Himachal Pradesh, s.
13(2)(i), Proviso Non-payment of arrears of rent on first hearing of
application for ejectment-Legal effect thereof.
The Court of the Judicial Commissioner of
Himachal Pradesh exercises jurisdiction in relation to the whole of the
territories of Himachal Pradesh.
The Rent Controller and the District Judge
exercising jurisdiction under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act,,1949, are
certainly tribunals it not courts within the meaning of art. 227 of the
Constitution and they function within the territories of 566 Himachal Pradesh.
Therefore art. 227(1) read with art. 241 confers on the Court of the Judicial
Commissioner power of superintendence over such tribunals.
The words "in relation to which" in
art. 227(1) qualify the word "territories" and not the words
"courts and tribunals".
There is no force in the contention that cl.
(2) of art.
227 only confers on the High Court
administrative superintendence over the subordinate courts and tribunals
because cl. (2) of the article is expressed to be without prejudice to the
generality of the provisions in cl. (1).
The power of superintendence conferred by
art. 227 should be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in
order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and
not for correcting mere errors.
In view of the admitted failure by the
tenants to pay the rent as provided by the rent deed or at the first hearing of
the court under the proviso to s. 13(2)(1) the lower courts had acted
arbitrarily in refusing to make an order for ejectment against the tenants who
had not done what was incumbent on them to do under the law and thereby refused
to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law and it was a case which called
for interference by the Court of Judicial Commissioner and it acted quite
properly in doing so.
Moti Lal v. The State through Shrimati
Sagrawati (I.L.R.  1 All. 558 at p. 567) and Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar
Mukherjee (A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 193) referred to.
CiviL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 64 of 1953.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and
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 Chona, with him) for
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 Commissioner of Himachal
Pradesh in proceedings instituted by the respondents under articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
There is no substantial dispute as to the
facts leading up to the present appeal. The 'appellants 567 were tenants of a
certain shop premises situate in Solan Bazar in the district of Mahasu in Himachal
Pradesh. On the 11th October, 1947, they had executed a rent deed by which they
agreed to pay an annual rent of Rs. 175 payable as to Rs. 50 on the last of
Baisakh and as to the balance of Rs.
125 in the month of October, in default of
which payment,% the respondents, as landlords, would be entitled to recover the
whole of the said rent in one lump sum. The tenancy created by the rent deed
was only for one year in the first instance but it provided that if the tenants
desired to continue in occupation they must execute a further rent deed before
the expiration of the said term. The appellants never executed any further rent
deed but held over and continued in occupation of the demised premises.
The appellants fell into arrears with the
payments of rents due for the years 1948 and 1949 and the respondents made
applications to the Rent Controller for eviction of the appellants under
section 13 (2) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as
extended to Himachal Pradesh.
The appellants, however, paid up the arrears
of rent into court and claimed the benefit of the proviso to section 13 (2)
(i). The claim was allowed and the said applications were dismissed accordingly
on the 18th December, 1950.
The appellants again fell into arrears with
the payment of rent due for the year 1950. On the 26th December, 1950, the
respondents served on the appellants a notice calling upon the latter to pay
whole of the said rent forthwith but the appellants failed to do so. The
respondents thereupon, on the 2nd January, 1951, filed an application under
section 13 (2) (i) for the eviction of the appellants on the ground of
nonpayment of rent.
Thereafter, on the 10th January, 1951, the appellants made an application to the Rent Controller for the fixation of a fair
rent under section 4 of the said Act.
On the 25th January, 1951, the appellants
filed their written statements in the proceedings under section 13 568 (2) (i)
admitting the nonpayment of rent and the receipt of the notice but pleaded (i)
that the respondents' application was barred by reason of the rejection 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 their
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 entertain able in view of the judgment of the District Judge, dated the
18th December, 1950 Onus on defendants.
(2) If issue No. I is not proved, had the
opposite party (tenants) not paid the rent and as such were they liable to be
ejected? Onus on plaintiffs.
(3) Have the opposite party already filed an
application in the said court for the fixation of rent and are they, therefore,
not liable for ejectment pending the decision on the application and what is
its effect on the said application? Onus on defendants.
By his judgment, dated the 29th May, 1951,
the Rent Controller held that as the previous applications related to
non-payment of rents for the years 1948 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 in arrears was admitted, the
Rent Controller did not think fit to make an order directing the appellants to
put the respondents in possession of the demised premises. The reasons given by
him were as follows:" Regarding the non-payment of the rent when the plea
of the tenant is only that he is waiting for the fixation of fair rent by the
Rent Controller there is not enough ground for ejectment. A civil suit for the
recovery of the rent would have been a more appropriate method of obtaining
I therefore dismiss the suit.' The parties
should bear their own 569 The respondents preferred an appeal to the District
Judge of Mahasu under section 15 of the said Act. The learned District Judge
dismissed the appeal observing" On behalf of the landlord it was urged that
under section 13 (2) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applied to
Himachal Pradesh, the Controller, if it came to the finding that rent had not
been paid, had no option but to direct the tenant to put the landlord in
Undoubtedly, that is the correct legal
position, but in the present case the non-payment of rent was due to a
misapprehension of the legal position created by the tenant filing an
application for fixing fair rent. 1, therefore, think that this case can be
distinguished and does not fall within section 13 (2), Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act." The respondents moved the Judicial Commissioner,
Himachal Pradesh, under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for
setting aside the order of the District Judge.
The learned Judicial Commissioner held that
in view of the admitted failure to pay the rent as provided by the rent deed or
at the first hearing of the court under the proviso to section 13 (2) (i) the
courts below had acted arbitrarily in refusing to make an order for ejectment
against the tenants who had not done what was incumbent on them to do under the
law and that such a situation called for interference by the court of the
Judicial Commissioner in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds
of their authority. He accordingly set aside the orders of the courts below and
allowed the application for ejectment but gave the appellants three months'
time for vacating the premises. The appellants have now come up before this
court on appeal by special leave obtained from this court.
Learned advocate appearing in support of this
appeal urges that the learned Judicial Commissioner acted wholly without
jurisdiction inasmuch as (1) the Rent Controller or the District Judge
exercising powers 570 under the Act was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the
High Court and, therefore, article 227 confers no 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.
Re. l.-The court of the Judicial Commissioner
of Himachal Pradesh exercises jurisdiction in relation to the whole of the
territories of Himachal Pradesh. The Rent Controller and the District Judge
exercising jurisdiction under the Act are certainly tribunals, if not courts,
and they function within the territories of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore,
article 297 (1) read with article 241 confers on the court of the Judicial
Commissioner power of superintendence over such tribunals. The words " in
relation to which " obviously qualify the word " territories "
and not the words "courts and tribunals".
Re. 2.The material part of article 227
substantially reproduces the provisions of section 107 of the Government of
India Act, 1915, except that the power of superintendence has been extended by
the article also to tribunals. That the Rent Controller and the District Judge
exercising jurisdiction under the Act are tribunals cannot and has not been
controverted. The only question raised is as to the nature of the power of
superintendence conferred by the article. Reference is made to clause (2) of
the article in support of the contention that this article only confers on the
High Court administrative superintendence over the subordinate courts and
tribunals. We are unable to accept this contention because clause ( 2) is,
expressed to be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions in clause
(1). Further, the preponderance of judicial opinion in India was that section
107 which was similar in terms to section 15 of the High Courtís Act, 1861,
gave a power of judicial superintendence to the High Court apart from and
independently of the provisions of other laws conferring revisional jurisdiction
on the High Court. In this connection it has to 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 the 1935 Act, however,
introduced sub-section (2), which was new, providing that nothing in the
section should 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 decisions 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 is significant to note that sub-section
(2) to 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 the High Court the power of judicial superintendence it had under
section 15 of the High Courts Act, 186 1, and section 107 of the Government of
India Act, 1915. See the cases referred to in -Moti Lal v. The State through
Shrimati Sagrawati(1). Our attention has not been drawn to any case which has
taken a different view and, as at present advised, we see no reason to take a
This power of superintendence conferred by
article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries C. J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v.
Sukumar Mukherjee(2), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate
cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their
authority and not for correcting mere errors. As rightly pointed out by the
Judicial Commissioner in the case before us the lower courts in refusing to
make an order for ejectment acted arbitrarily. The lower courts realised the
legal position but in effect declined to do what was by section 13 (2) (i)
incumbent on them to do and thereby refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in
them by law. It. was, therefore, a case which called for an interference by the
court of the Judicial Commissioner and it acted (1) I.L.R.  1 All. 558 at
p. 567, (2) A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 193.
75 572 quite properly in doing so. In our
opinion there is no ground on which in an appeal by special leave under article
136 we should interfere. The appeal, therefore, must stand dismissed with
Agent for the appellants: M. M. Sinha. Agent
for the respondent: K. L. Mehta.