G.D. Khosla, J. - (1.) A common point of law arises in these five revision petitions (Civil Revisions Nos. 457-D and 537-D of 1957 and 427-D, 428-D and 594-D of 1958), namely, whether the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to hear appeals under Section 34 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. We propose to decide only this question of law, the petitions on merits can then be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.) In the State of Delhi Mr. Radha Kishan Baweja has been invested with powers to hear appeals under Section 39 (3) of the Punjab Courts Act. His Court was known as the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge and he heard appeals under Section 34 of the Rent Control Act. When the volume of these last mentioned appeals increased, it was considered necessary to empower another Court with authority to hear them, Accordingly a notification was issued by the Punjab High Court under Section 39 (3) of the Punjab Courts Act conferring appellate powers upon Shri Pritam Singh Pattar. Shri Jasmer Singh officiated as Senior Subordinate Judge in place of Shri Baweja for a time and by another notification Shri Jasmer Singh was also invested with appellate powers. There were, therefore, two Subordinate Judges of the first class empowered to hear appeals under Section 34 of the Rent Control Act. One of them was called "Senior Subordinate Judge" and the other "Additional Senior Subordinate Judge." Four of the above mentioned revision petitions arise out of appellate orders passed by Shri Jasmer Singh, Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, and one, namely, Civil Revision No. 594-D of 1958, arises out of an order passed by Shri Pritam Singh, Additional Senior Subordinate Judge. The question for our decision is whether Shri Jasmer Singh and Shri Pritam Singh Pattar were respectively competent to entertain and deal with these appeals under law. The contention of the petitioners in all these cases is that the respective Courts acted without jurisdiction.
(3.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners may be summed up briefly under four heads( 1) The appeals under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 which will hereinafter be referred to as statute, lie to the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge where the value does not exceed two thousand rupees, to the Court of District Judge where the value exceeds Rs. 2,000.00 but not Rs. 10,000.00 and to the High Court where the value exceeds Rs. 10,000.00. The statute does not provide for appeals to any other Court and, therefore, the appeals could not lie to the Court of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge; (2) the law does not recognise the Court of an Additional Senior Subordinate Judge as such,, and if a Court is designated as the Court of Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, it cannot exercise the jurisdiction which is vested by law in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge; (3) neither the Court of Shri Jasmer Singh nor the Court of Shri Pritam Singh Pattar was the Court of Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, because in the notifications conferring appellate powers on these two officers they were not describe ed as Additional Senior Subordinate Judges; and (4) the Senior Subordinate Judge had no power to transfer appeals which were filed in the original instance in his Court and were later assigned to Shri Jasmer Singh and Shri Pritam Singh Pattar respectively.;