1954 (1) TMI 29 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Application of section 13 (2) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
3. Power of superintendence conferred by article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The case involved an appeal against an order made by the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Judicial Commissioner, arguing that the Rent Controller and the District Judge were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court, and therefore, article 227 did not confer any power on the court of the Judicial Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the court of the Judicial Commissioner had the power of superintendence over tribunals like the Rent Controller and the District Judge within the territories of Himachal Pradesh, as provided under article 297 (1) read with article 241.

Issue 2: Application of section 13 (2) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
The tenants had fallen into arrears with rent payments for the years 1948, 1949, and 1950. The landlords filed applications for eviction under section 13 (2) (i) of the Rent Restriction Act. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the applications, considering the pending application for fair rent fixation. However, the District Judge overturned this decision, stating that the non-payment of rent was due to a misapprehension by the tenants. The Judicial Commissioner set aside the lower court orders and allowed the application for ejectment, giving the tenants three months to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, emphasizing that the lower courts had acted arbitrarily in not ordering ejectment as required by law.

Issue 3: Power of superintendence conferred by article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court clarified that article 227 granted the High Court the power of judicial superintendence over tribunals like the Rent Controller and the District Judge. The omission of a provision similar to sub-section (2) of section 224 of the 1935 Act in article 227 indicated a restoration of the High Court's power of judicial superintendence. The Court highlighted that this power should be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their authority. In this case, the Judicial Commissioner's intervention was deemed necessary to correct the lower courts' arbitrary actions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by special leave.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Judicial Commissioner, emphasizing the importance of judicial superintendence to maintain the integrity of the legal process and ensure adherence to statutory provisions. The appeal was dismissed with costs.