Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is a rule directed against an order passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Delhi, holding that the appeal lay to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge and not to the Court of the District Judge.
(2.) ON the 14th of April, 1947, the Plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and for recovery of Rs. 1,760/ - as rent under the Delhi and Ajmer -Merwara Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This suit was dismissed on the 23rd of December, 1947. An appeal was taken to the District Judge on the 19th of January, 1948, and he decreed the suit. A Second appeal was brought to this Court which was dismissed and leave to appeal was asked for. At that stage a compromise was entered into between the landlord and the tenant whereby the decree -holder undertook not to execute his decree till the 1st of October, 1948. On the 1st of October, 1948, the decree -holder took out execution and on the same day the judgment -debtor filed an application under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, attacking the validity of the decree on the ground of jurisdiction that the decree passed by the District Judge was 'coram non judice. On the 13th of November, 1948, the executing Court held that the District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. An appeal was taken to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge who by an order dated 22nd of March, 1950, held that the appeal lay to the District Judge and not to him. On the appeal being presented to the District Judge, it was held by the II Additional District Judge that the appeal lay to the Senior Subordinate Judge and returned it for presentation to him. A revision has been brought to this Court against both these orders and the rule was issued by my Lord, the Chief Justice, on the 13th of November, 1950. As the question is of some importance, I thought it necessary to give a considered judgment.
(3.) SECTION 14 of the Act provides for the jurisdiction of the Court; Sub -section (2) of this section is as follows: 14(2) With the concurrence of the Chief Commissioner, the High Court may make rule to determine the classes of Courts which shall have power to hear and decide original cases, appeals and applications for revision and to deal with execution proceedings under this Act and the procedure to be followed by them. Sub -section (3) of Section 14 is as follows: 14(3) The provisions of this Act and of any rules made under Sub -section (2) shall, in respect of any case under this Act, have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or any other law. This Court has made rules with the concurrence of the Chief Commissioner. Rule 3 of the Rules made is as under: 3. All Civil Courts, in the Province of Delhi shall have power to hear and decide original cases and to deal with execution proceedings under the Act to the extent of their pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of civil suits or decrees governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Provided that all cases in which the value does not exceed Rs. 2,000/ - arising out of the Act except cases of eviction under Section 9 shall be tried by the Judge. Small Cause Court. 'Explanation': The value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be determined by the amount of the rent which is or would be payable for a period of twelve months, calculated according to the highest amount claimed in dispute. Rule 4 provides: 4. A party to an original case shall have a right of appeal as follows: (i) to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, in cases in which the value does not exceed Rs. 2,000/ -; (ii) to the Court of the District Judge in cases in which the value exceeds Rs. 2,000/ - but does not exceed Rs. 10,000/ - and (iii) to the High Court in cases in which the value exceeds Rs. 10,000/ -: Provided that there shall be no right of appeal in case decided by the Judge, Small Cause Court, but there shall be a right of revision to the High Court. Rule 5 provides:;