Bishan Narain, J. - (1.) Raj Krishan Jain is the owner of a double storey building bearing Municipal Numbers 4231 and 4236. This building stands on plot No.11 which is part of Kothi No. 1, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Each portion consists of four flats and each flat has been given on rent to a different tenant. Thus eight, tenants occupy this building. On the application of some of the tenants for fixation of standard rent under section 7-A read with Schedule IV of the Delhi and Aimer Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, the Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 453/-for the whole building and then apportioned it between the various tenants. Dissatisfied with this order the landlord appealed to the District Judge, Delhi who dismissed it. The landlord then applied under Articles .226 and 227 of the Constitution to this Court seelang to quash the order of the District Judge. Falshaw J. treated this petition as one under Article 227 of the Constitution and dismissed it. The landlord has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to this appeal and that is that the order under appeal being one under Article 227 of the Constitution in exercise of power of superintendence was not appealable. The learned counsel for the appellant in reply has urged that a Letters Patent Appeal against the order under Article 227 is competent and in any case the judgment in question was made in substance under Article 226 of the Constitution and is appealable. The learned counsel for both sides have placed their reliance on the same statutory provisions and it will be convenient to describe them before dealing with the arguments.
(3.) The High Court of Judicature at Lahore was constituted by the Letters Patent dated 21st of March, 1919. Admittedly all the provisions of that Letters Patent apply to this Court also. Clause 10 of this Letters Patents allows an appeal from a decree or order made by a Single Judge. This right can be exercised only under certain conditions. The clause also enumerates certain exceptions to this right. We are only concerned in this cases with the exception under which no appeal lies if the Single Judge has made an order "in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of section 107 of the Government of India Act." This Section 107 reads:-" Each of the High Courts has superintendence over all courts for the time being subject to its appellate jurisdiction, and may do any of the following things, that is to say, (a) call for returns; (b) direct the transfer of any suit or appeal from any such court to any other court of equal or superior jurisdiction; (c) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; (d) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts; and (e) settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff, attorneys, and all clerks and officers of Courts: Provided that such rules,. forms and tables shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of any Act for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval, in the case of the High Court of Calcutta, of the Governor-General in Council, and in other cases of the local Government." This section was reproduced with certain changes in Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The provision contained in Section 107 (b) relating to transfer of suits and appeals was deleted. Sub-section (2) was introduced. It read: "Nothing in this section, shall be construed as giving to a High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision." Then the Parliament of England enacted the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and set up two independent Dominions (India and Pakistan). The Independence Act substituted various provisions for certain provisions of the 1935 Act and provided for other matters consequential on or connected with the setting up of the two Dominions. Neither this Act nor the Adaptation Order specifically dealt with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Subject to changes introduced by the Independence Act the Government of India Act 1935 continued in force. Then on 26th of January, 1950, our present Constitution came into force. This Constitution re pealed the Independence Act and also the Government of India Act 1935 and substituted Article 227 of the Constitution in place of section 224 of the 1935 Act. The provisions contained in Section 224 (2) do not find place in Article 227. Now power has been given to High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority. Articles 226 and 227 read:-- "226 (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person Or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certioran, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part XII and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred on a High Court by Clause (1) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32. 227. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may:--(a) call for returns from such courts: (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under Clause (2) or Clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.";