TMI Blog1954 (1) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were tenants of a certain shop premises situate in Solan Bazar in the district of Mahasu in Himachal Pradesh. On the llth October, 1947, they had executed a rent deed by which they agreed to pay an annual rent of ₹ 175 payable as to ₹ 50 on the last of Baisakh and as to the balance of ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction 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 entertainable 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 pendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, 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 eject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial 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 onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court the power of judicial superintendence it had under section 15 of the High Court;s 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. 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 different view. This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries C. J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee), 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 Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
