Teja Singh, C.J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the appellate authority Patiala whereby he dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from the order of the; Rent Controller, Patiala.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the Petitioner took a house on rent from the Respondent on 15 -2 -2006 Sam vat on an yearly rent of Rs. 225/ -. The tenancy was to commence with effect from 1 -1 -2006. During the course of the tenancy the tenant made a petition to the Rent Controller for fixation of the fair rent and the Controller by his order dated 27 -8 -2007 fixed the rent at Rs. 120/ - per annum. The application for the Petitioner's adjustment out of which this petition has arisen was made by the Respondent on 2 -11 -2007. He took a number of grounds but the only one that prevailed with the Rent Controller was that the Petitioner had not paid any rent and accordingly he ordered his adjustment. While the Respondent's position was that the Petitioner had not paid anything out of the rent of the next year the Petitioner pleaded that since the fair rent had been fixed at Rs. 120/ - per annum, and he had paid to the Respondent Rs. 105/ - over and above that amount, he was entitled to deduct that much from the rent due from him The Rent Controller overruled this plea and held that since no payment had been made towards the rent for the year 2007, the application for; adjustment had to be allowed. In the course of the appeal that the Petitioner preferred to the appellate authority he repeated his contention and urged that the amount that he had paid at the time of the commencement of the tenancy and which was over and above the amount fixed as fair rent should have been accounted for towards the rent of the second year. The appellate authority accepted this plea but held that since the total rent of the year was Rs. 120/ - and the amount which the Petitioner was entitled to a count for towards that rent was Rs. 105/ - only, the of Rs. 15/ - still remained unpaid and he therefore liable to be ejected. Mr. D.K. Puri counsel., for the Petitioner taken me through some of the provisions of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and contends that the construction placed by the appellate authority upon those provisions was erroneous. He also contends that though the appellate authority did not say in so many words he appeared to be of the view that the entire rent of the ear was payable in advance, but this finding was not correct. Mr. Babu Ram counsel for the Respondent on the other hand refers me to Section 8 and 13 of the Ordinance and argues that reading both these sections together there can be no doubt that the Petitioner was not entitled to get any credit for Rs. 105/ - that he had paid at the time of the commencement of the lease -deed over, and above the amount that was fixed as fair rent, because Section 8 definitely provides six months' time for the purpose and since the lease deed as well as the order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent were silent about the time of the payment of the rent, the rent was payable monthly. In my opinion it is not necessary to go into these matters because even if I were inclined to agree with the Petitioner's counsel that the view taken by the appellate authority was wrong, his order cannot be set aside in these proceedings only for that reason. It has been held by this Count in several cases that for purposes of Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court is neither a Court of Appeal nor a Court of Revision from the orders of the tribunals and that it can interfere only in those cases where the tribunal has acted without Jurisdiction or there is a mistake apparent on the record or its decision is opposed to natural justice. None of these conditions is satisfied in the present case, because the appellate authority while hearing an appeal from the decision of the Rent Controller had Jurisdiction to decide whether rent was payable in advance or monthly and whether the Petitioner was entitled to have the amount that he had paid over and above the fair rent accounted towards the rent due from him. In addition I wish to observe that the Petitioner has been extremely negligent in the conduct of his case before the Rent Controller and if he so desired he could have got rid of the application for adjustment, simply by paying a few rupees together with costs and interest on the first hearing, but as is mentioned in the order of the appellate authority he appeared before the Rent Controller for the first time on 17 -4 -1951 and it was after three or four hearings that he came forward with an application that he was prepared to pay up the arrears, but even then he did not actually make the payment. This being the case no equities arise in favor of the Petitioner and the relief under Article 227 being discretionary I am of the opinion that the same should be refused in the interests of Justice.
(3.) MR . Puri refers me to a decision of the Assam High Court, "The State v. Judhabir Chetri : AIR 1953 Gau 35 (PB) (A) in which it was held that the remedy provided by Article 227 partakes the character of an appeal or revision. This view is opposed to the view taken by our Court and with all deference it does not appear to me to be correct.;