Shah, J. - (1.) M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull - who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellants - were tenants of three warehouses and vacant land appurtenant thereto- popularly known as the Shamnagar Jute Godowns-belonging to Sri Hanuman Seva Trust. The warehouses were used for storage of jute belonging to the appellants. By an order dated August 17, 1943, and issued under R. 75A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the warehouses were requisitioned and possession thereof was taken on September 21,1943. As the amount of compensation payable to the owner of warehouses could not be fixed by agreement an Arbitrator, was appointed under S.19(1)(b) of the Defence of India Act, 1939. Before the Arbitrator, Sri Hanuman Seva Trust claimed compensation as owners of the warehouses. The appellants claimed compensation for loss of earnings, "damages to business" and cost of removal of 18,000 maunds of jute and some iron implements, which the appellants claimed had to be removed in consequence of the order of requisition. The appellants estimated the compensation at Rs. one lakh. The Arbitrator by his order dated December 13, 1947, observed that the appellants had failed to prove any actual loss of business in consequence of the requisition, and rejected the claim of the appellants.
(2.) Against the order passed by the Arbitrator an appeal was preferred to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The appellants valued the claim at Rs. 1,50,000/-. At the hearing of the appeal, the State of West Bengal contended that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the provisions of S. 19(1)(f) and (g) and S. 19(3)(c) of the Defence of India Act and the 2nd Proviso to R. 19 framed under the Defence of India Act. The High Court upheld the contention raised by the State of West Bengal and dismissed the appeal. With special leave the appellants have appealed to this Court.
(3.) Under cl. (1) of S. 19 of the Defence of India Act, 35 of 1939, it is provided, in so far as it is material: "Where under S. l9A or by or under any rule made under this Act any action is taken of the nature described in sub-sec. (2) of S. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, there shall be paid compensation, the amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with principles hereinafter set out, that is to say: ********** (f) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against an award of the Arbitrator except in cases where the amount thereof does not exceed an amount prescribed in this behalf by rule made by the Central Government. (g) Save as provided in this section and in any rules made thereunder, nothing in any law for the time being in force shall apply to arbitrations under this section". Sub-section (3), in so far as it is material, provides:- "(3) In particular and without any prejudice to the generality of foregoing power, such rules may prescribe:- ********** (c) the maximum amount of an award against which no appeal shall lie." By notification dated March 22, 1945, Rules were framed under S. 19 relating to arbitration for settlement of compensation. Rule 19 of the Rules provided: "19. Any appeal against the award of the Arbitrator shall be presented within six weeks from the date of receipt by the Collector or the party by whom the appeal is preferred of the copy of the award sent under Rule 17: Provided that ********** Provided further that no appeal shall lie against an award made under these Rules where the amount of the compensation awarded does not exceed Rs. 5,000 in lump or Rs.250 per mensem". The Arbitrator appointed under S.19 of the Defence of India Act is not a court or a tribunal subject to the Appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. By the Defence of India Act a right to appeal against the award of the Arbitrator is conferred, but that right is restricted in the manner prescribed by the Rules. It is provided by the second proviso to R. 19 that an appeal shall not lie against an award where the amount of compensation does not exceed Rs. 5,000/-.;