# ·.Wal)'atn Singh and Another v. Amarnath and Anoti,er. Das]

- **Citation:** [1954] 1 S.C.R. 565
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1951-11-29
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan C.J, B. K. MuKHERJF.A, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, Ghulam Hasan Jj
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/wal-atn-singh-and-another-v-amarnath-and-anoti-er-das-319
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India, art,·. 227 and 241-High Court-Whether conferred power of judicial superintendence-Rent
Controller
and
District fudge-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), ProvisoNon-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 \Vhole
of the territories of
Himachal Pradesh.
The Rent Control and the
District Judge exercising juris·
diction under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, are
certainly tribunals if not courts within the meaning of art. 227 of
the
Constitution
and
they' function
within
the territories
of
1953
TM State of·
West
Bengal
and Othtrs.
Patanjali Sastrf
C.J.
1954
Jan. 19·.
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 amfcrs on the Court of the Judicial Com1nissioner po\ver
of superinten<lencc over such tribunals.
The \VorJs
"in relation to vvhich"
in art. 227 ( 1) qualify the
\vorJ "territories'' and not the \Vords "courts an<l tribunals".
1~here is no force 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 the :i.:·ticle is
expressed t(; be
\vithout prejudice to the generality of tho(! provisions in cl. (1).
The po\ver
of superinten<lence conferred
by art. 227 should
be exercised inost sparingly and only
in appropriate cases in order
to keep the subordinate
courts
\Vithin the bounds
of their authority and not for correcting: 111crc errors.
Tn
vic\V
of the a<linitted failure
by the tenants to pay the
rent as pro\'illed by the rent dcc<l or at the first hearing of the cuurt
under the pn.i\·iso
to s.
13(2)(1) the lo\Vcr
courts had act~d arbitrarily
in refusing
to 111ake
an order
for cjcctment
against the
tenants \\·ho ha<l not done
\Vhat was incumbent on them to do
under the la\V
an<l thereby refused to exercise
jurisdiction
vested
in the1n by la\V and it \Vas a case
\vhich called for interference hy
the Court of Judicial Co1nmissioner and it acted quite properly
in
doing so.
Moti Lal v. The State
through
Shriniati Sagratvati
(I.L.R.
119521 1 All. 558 at p. 567)
and Dalmia fain
Airways Ltd. v.
Sukumar :\lukherjee (A.LR. 1951 Cal. 193) referred to.
C1v1L
APPELLATE
JuR1so1cTIO'<: Civil Appeal No.
64 of 1953.
Appeal by special leave from 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
Commissioner
of
Himachal
Pradesh
in
proceeJings
instituted
by the
respondents
under
'1rticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is
leading up
no substantial
to
the
present
dispute
appeal.
as to
The
the facts
appellants
'
...
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 1st
of Baisakh an<l as to the balance of Rs. 125 in the
month of October, in default of which payments the
respondents, as landlords, would be entitled to recover
the whole of the said rent in one lump sum. The
tenancy
cr~ated 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

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
565
below· observe that it is common knowledge that since
the end of the war land, particularly around Calcutta,
has increased enormously in value and might still
further increase very considerably in value ·when the
pace of industrialisation increases. Any principle for
determining compensation which denies to the owner
this increment in value cannot result in the .ascertainment of the true equivalent of the land appropriated.
We accordingly hold that the latter part of proviso
(b) to section 8 of the impugned Act which fixes the
market value on December 31, 1946, as the maximum
compensation for lands acquired under it offends against
the provisions of article 31 (2)
and is unconstitutional
and void. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant : P. K. Bose.
Agent for respondents Nos.
1, 2 and 3 : S. C.
Banerjee.
Agent for the intervener: C. H. Rajadhyaks?a.
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-Whether conferred power of judicial superintendence-Rent
Controller
and
District fudge-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), ProvisoNon-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 \Vhole
of the territories of
Himachal Pradesh.
The Rent Control and the
District Judge exercising juris·
diction under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, are
certainly tribunals if not courts within the meaning of art. 227 of
the
Constitution
and
they' function
within
the territories
of
1953
TM State of·
West
Bengal
and Othtrs.
Patanjali Sastrf
C.J.
1954
Jan. 19·.
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 amfcrs on the Court of the Judicial Com1nissioner po\ver
of superinten<lencc over such tribunals.
The \VorJs
"in relation to vvhich"
in art. 227 ( 1) qualify the
\vorJ "territories'' and not the \Vords "courts an<l tribunals".
1~here is no force 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 the :i.:·ticle is
expressed t(; be
\vithout prejudice to the generality of tho(! provisions in cl. (1).
The po\ver
of superinten<lence conferred
by art. 227 should
be exercised inost sparingly and only
in appropriate cases in order
to keep the subordinate
courts
\Vithin the bounds
of their authority and not for correcting: 111crc errors.
Tn
vic\V
of the a<linitted failure
by the tenants to pay the
rent as pro\'illed by the rent dcc<l or at the first hearing of the cuurt
under the pn.i\·iso
to s.
13(2)(1) the lo\Vcr
courts had act~d arbitrarily
in refusing
to 111ake
an order
for cjcctment
against the
tenants \\·ho ha<l not done
\Vhat was incumbent on them to do
under the la\V
an<l thereby refused to exercise
jurisdiction
vested
in the1n by la\V and it \Vas a case
\vhich called for interference hy
the Court of Judicial Co1nmissioner and it acted quite properly
in
doing so.
Moti Lal v. The State
through
Shriniati Sagratvati
(I.L.R.
119521 1 All. 558 at p. 567)
and Dalmia fain
Airways Ltd. v.
Sukumar :\lukherjee (A.LR. 1951 Cal. 193) referred to.
C1v1L
APPELLATE
JuR1so1cTIO'<: Civil Appeal No.
64 of 1953.
Appeal by special leave from 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
Commissioner
of
Himachal
Pradesh
in
proceeJings
instituted
by the
respondents
under
'1rticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is
leading up
no substantial
to
the
present
dispute
appeal.
as to
The
the facts
appellants
'
...
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 1st
of Baisakh an<l as to the balance of Rs. 125 in the
month of October, in default of which payments the
respondents, as landlords, would be entitled to recover
the whole of the said rent in one lump sum. The
tenancy
cr~ated 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
-0ecupati~n of the demised premises.
The appellants Jell into arrears with the payments
.of rents due for the years
1948 and 1949 and the
respondents ma& applications to 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, however, paid up the arrears of rent into court and claimed
the benefit of the proviso to section 13(2) (i). The
daim 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
~o. 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
1954
W aryam Singh
and Anotlur
,.,
Arnarnath and
Another.
Das].
'
1954
Waryam Singh
and Anoth1r
v.
Amanwtk and
Analhtr.
Das].
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19541
(2) .(i) admitting the non-payment 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
entertainable in view of the judgment of the District
Judge,
dated
the
18th December,
1950 ? Onus on
defendants.
(2) If issue No. 1 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 teaant 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
that rent.
I
therefore
dismiss the suit.
The parties should bear their own
costs."
,
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 possession. 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. I, 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
appearmg m 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
7-9± S. C.India/59
1954
i-Varyam Singh
and Another
v.
Amarnath and
Another.
Das].
1954
Waryam Singh
and Another
v.
Amarnath and
Another.
Das].
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
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. 1.-Tht 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
exerc1smg
jurisdiction under the Act are certainly tribunals, if
not courts, and they function within the territories of
Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, article 227(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 namre 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 Courts
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
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 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, 1861, 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
p~esent advised, we see no reason to take a different
v1ew.
This
power
of superintendence
conferred
~y
<trticle
227 is,
as
pointed out by Harries C.J.,
m
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
Commissioner in the case before us the lower courts in
refusing to make an
order
for ejectment acted
<trbitrarily. 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,
therrfore, a case which called for an interference by
the court of the Judicial
Commissioner and it acted
(t) l.L.R. [r952] I All. 558 at p. 567.
(2)
A.LR.195r Cal. r93.
• 1954
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
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 costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellants : M. M. Sinha.
Agent for the respondent: K. L. Mehta.
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 Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947), s. 4Bombay 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)
by the Amending Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951)
is ultra vires
art. 14 of the Constitution.
The
facts
and
argurnents
are
sufficiently
stated
in
the
Judgtnent.
ORIGINAL JullisnicnoN PETITION
No. 271
of 1952 :
Petition for special leave to appeal No. 108 of 1952.
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution and
petition for special leave against the Judgment and
Order stated the 7th July, 1952, of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay
(Chagla C. J. and Gajendragadkar J.)
in Civil
Revision
Application No. 567
of 1952.
/. B. Dadachanji for the petitioner.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for
India, and
C.
K.
Daphtary, Solicitor-General for
India
(Porus
A. Mehta, with them) for the respondents .
1953. December 18. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by DAs J.