Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Sriniwas under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari against the Collector of Sawai Jaipur and Parasram. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and we have, therefore, heard only the learned counsel for the applicant.
(2.) THE facts which have led to this application are these. THE applicant is the owner of a house in the City of Jaipur outside Sanganeri Gate. He let it to Parasram on the 21st of May, 1948 on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/ -. Three months later, Parasram applied to the Rent Controller, Jaipur for determining the standard rent of the house. THE Rent Controller held that the standard rent according to the second schedule of the Jaipur Rent Control Order 1947 came to Rs. 187/8/- but as the contractual rent was only Rs. 165/- per month, Parasram was ordered to continue paying the same amount. THE matter was taken in appeal to the Collector by Parasram who allowed the appeal and reduced the rent to Rs. 100/- per month. It is against this order of the Collector that the present application has been made. Learned counsel urges that there is an error patent on the face of the record and as such this court should issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Collector and directing him to proceed according to law. He relies in this connection on Mohsinali Mohomedali and others vs. The State of Bombay (A. I. R. 1951 Bombay P. 303 ). In that case the question of the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of issuing writs) of certiorari was considered and it was held that the jurisdiction exercised in this matter was a limited jurisdiction and when any court had been empowered to determine certain questions and jurisdiction had been conferred upon it to do so, then the determination by the Court of those questions, however erroneous in facr or in law, could not call into play the jurisdiction of the High Court under its high prerogative of issuing a writ of certiorari. There were however two exceptions to this principle. The first is that the superior court will interfere when an error of law is patent on the face of the record and the second is that the determination is arrived at mala fide. Learned counsel urges that an error is patent on the face of the record in this case if one reads the order of the Collector and sec. 6 and schedule 2 R. (b) (ii) of the Jaipur Rent Control Order 1947. Schedule 2 prescribes the mode for determination of fair rent. Sec. 6 (2) provides that where the fair rent cannot be determined under Schedule 2, it would be determined under sec. 6 (2 ). A bare reading of the order of the Collector shows that in this case fair rent could be determined under Schedule 2. Under these circumstances the Collector had no jurisdiction to proceed to act under sec. 6 (2) as he did and should have decide i the appeal on the basis of the provisions of schedule 2. We, therefore, allow the application, quash the order of the Collector dated nth April, 1950. He will now proceed to decide the appeal according to law. As no one has appeared to oppose the application, we pass no orders as to costs. .;