S.P.Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 20 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) for the transfer of eviction proceedings pending in the Court of Rent Controller, Shri A.S. Garg, Senior Sub Judge, Ambala, to the Court of some other Rent Controller outside the State of Haryana.
(2.) THE only ground on which the transfer of the proceedings is claimed is that Shri Ravi Kumar Nehru, who was a practicing lawyer at Ambala, appeared as a witness against the petitioner and as he is now posted as Additional District Judge, Karnal, it would be very embarrassing for the Senior Sub Judge to critically examine his statement or disbelieve him. The factual position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent but he has urged that under section 20 of the Act, the High Court in empowered to order transfer of any proceedings' from one appellate authority to another appellate authority and, therefore, there is no power with the High Court to transfer proceedings from the Court of Rent Controller to the Court of another Rent Controller in the State, much less outside the State He has further submitted that as the Legislature has made a specific provision under Section 20 for the transfer of the proceedings under the Act, it would not be open to this Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to transfer such proceedings. I am, however, unable to agree with this contention In Civil Revision No. 34 of 1961 (Messrs Peli Ram Goion v. Shri Ram Kunwar) C.R. 34 of 1961 decided on March 16th 1961, D.K. Mahajan, J. (as he then was) relying on Mohamed Abdul Raoof v. State of Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1951 Hyd. 50 (F.B.), and Bhataraju Nageshawra Rao v. Hon'ble Judges of the Madras High Court,, A.I.R. 1955 SC 23 held that the language of Article 227 of the Constitution is wide enough so as to spell out of it the power Of transfer and transferred the case from the Court of Rent Controller to the Court of District Judge for trial. This Court consequently has ample power to transfer a case in the exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India even though the case is not covered by section 20 of the Act Another argument of she learned Counsel that by the Constitution (Forty second) Amendment Act, 1976, the word, 'tribunal' has been deleted from Article 227 of the Constitution and the Rent Controller being only a tribunal the High Court no more enjoys the power of superintendence over the tribunals under the Act is equally unsustainable To refute this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Shripatrao Dajisaheb and anther v. The State of Maharashtra, : A.I.R. 1977 Bom. 384 wherein it was held as under: - - The expression 'Courts' occurring in the amended Article 227 will have to be understood in its normal accepted connotation especially in the absence of any definition being given in the Constitution. The proposition is well settled that all Courts are tribunals but all tribunals are not Courts. The proposition in other words means that some tribunals would be basically courts, i.e. courts in their normal connotation while some others v. would not be Courts and, therefore, it cannot be said that Parliament wanted to exclude all tribunals from the purview of the High Court's superintendence under the amended Article 227 but it can be said that Parliament intended to exclude only such tribunals as are not basically courts from the High Court's superintendence. It follows that the High Court's power of Judicial superintendence under the amended Article 227 certainly covers judgments of all Courts meaning thereby all regular civil and criminal courts constituted under the hierarchy of courts subject to its appellate revisional jurisdiction but also extends to tribunals bodies of authorities, whatever be their label provided two conditions are satisfied, (a) such tribunal, body or authority is basically a Court i.e. it performs judicial function of rendering definitive judgments having finally and authoritativeness to bind the parties litigating their rights before it in exercise of sovereign judicial power transferred to it by the State and (b) such tribunal, body or authority is subject to High Court's appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The reliance placed on Articles 323 A and 323 B for the purpose of inferring an intention on the part of Parliament to exclude all tribunals from the purview of High Court's superintendence under the amended Article 227 is misplaced. It cannot be disputed that the Rent Controller while deciding cases under the Act exercise judicial powers and its judgments are binding on the parties subject to orders passed in appeal or revision I, therefore, respectfully following the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, held that the Rent Controller is a Court within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution and as such subject to the powers of superintendence of this Court. 9. The question that still remains to be determined is to whether a case has been made out for the transfer of the proceedings outside the State of Haryana. In support of his claim, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied on the judgment of S.C. Mittal, J. in Criminal Mise No. 477 -M of 1973 Patel Kumar and another v. The State of Haryana Cr. M. 477 -M of 1977, decided on February 21, 1978. In that case M.V.K. Kaushal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, had been cited as a witness by the complainant. The accused, therefore, moved this Court for the transfer of the case out of the State of Haryana, as according to him, no Magistrate in the State would be able to decide the case impartially and disbelieve the statement of a judicial officer belonging to the Higher Judicial Service. The contention of the accused was accepted and the case was transferred to the Court of Magistrate at Chandigarh. That was, however, a criminal case wherein different considerations prevail and it would not be safe to apply its ratio to a civil dispute. Moreover with utmost respect to the learned judge, I am unable to subscribe to the view that simply because an officer of the Higher Judicial Service has been cited as a witness, it would justify the transfer of the case out of the State May be that it would be embarrassing for a subordinate Judge or a Magistrate to disbelieve or judicially appreciate the statement of a witness belonging to the Higher Judicial Service but I am not prepared to accept that even a District or Sessions Judge would not be able to act impartially and be influenced by the statement of an Officer belonging to the Higher Judicial Service. 6. The proceedings between the parties pending in the Court of Shri A.S. Garg, Senior Sub -Judge Ambala, are, therefore, ordered to be transferred to the file of District Judge, Ambala, for disposal, in accordance with law. The parties, through their counsel, have been directed to appear in the said Court on January 29, 1979. No costs.;