Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1951 (4) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al purposes and running a cloth-shop in another rented house in Nagpur; that as the members of his family did not keep good health in the house occupied by them and as he found that it would be more convenient to stay in the same house in the upper flat and to carry on his business on the ground floor he purchased by registered sale-deed the house in question, at present in the occupation of the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, for ₹ 25,000 the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 being the tenants of the vendor. [2] The petitioner made an application to the Rent Controller, Nagpur, in revenue case No. 505/ 33-7 of 1949 50 on 10-12-1949 for permission to serve notice to the opposite parties 2 and 3 for determining the tenancy under the prov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that it was not shown that the shop premises occupied by the petitioner were either inconvenient or insufficient for the purposes of the trade carried on by the petitioner. He further held that under Cl 13 (3) (vi) (a) and (c) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order of 1949 it has to be proved that the need to occupy the house is genuine and bona fide . In his opinion the petitioner had failed to do that. Hence this application. [6] It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Courts below have ignored the provisions of sub-cl. (a) of cl. 13 (3) (vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order of 1949, which is in these terms: that the landlord needs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ri. [9] A very useful discussion of the law on issue or writs of certiorari is contained in the decision of the King's Bench Division in the case of R. V. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, (1951) 1 ALL E. R. 268. In that case, Chief Justice Lord Goddard has traced the history of the rule as to the circumstances in which a writ of certiorari shall issue. In that case, their Lordships found that the authorities who had been entrusted by the legislature with applying the National Health Service (Transfer of Officers and Compensation) Regulations, 1948, had misconstrued the provisions of those Regulations. It appeared from their orders that they were wrong on the face of them. Their Lordships relied upon the decision of the Ho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re, the Court has proceeded on the same error that the Court of Appeal fell into in the Racecourse Betting Control Board case, (1944) 1 All E. R. 60 . [11] That case is therefore an authority for the proposition that where a tribunal, especially created by the statute in question, has stated on the face of its order the grounds on which the order had been made, and in law those grounds were not such as to warrant the decision arrived at by it, certiorari will issue to remove the order into the High Court to be quashed. Applying the principles of that decision to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears to me that it is a fit case in which certiorari should issue and the order passed by the Court below quashed. [12] .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as the case may be. It is not for this Court to exercise such powers as are ordinarily exercisable in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The Court, while entertaining an application for a writ like the present, does not act either under its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction. I would therefore allow this application, quash the orders passed by the Courts exercising jurisdiction under the order in question and direct that the application be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of law pointed out above. The applicant is entitled to his costs payable by the opposite parties 2 and 3. Hearing fee ₹ 50. It is also directed that the case be disposed of as quickly as practicable. [13] Hidayatullah J,- I entirely agree .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates