WANCHOO, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IT appears that the applicants were defendants in a suit filed by Hans Raj opposite party under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The suit was filed in the court of Munsif, West, Jaipur City, as far back as 7th January, 1951, and it is now pending in the court of Munsif, East Jaipur City. The present application was made on the 20th of August, 1952, and the applicants contend that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is ultra vires of the powers of the Rajasthan Legislature. Among the reasons which they have advanced in the application for the Act being ultra vires, there is one that the Act offends against Arts. 14, 15 and 19 (1) of the Constitution. Learned counsel also said orally that he would submit that the Act is ultra vires because it purports to amend certain laws passed by the Central Legislature. We are of opinion that the applicants have not taken the proper remedy that it open to them, in this case Art. 228 of the Constitution specifically provides ; "it the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a court subordinate to it involves a Substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, it shall withdraw the case and may : - (a) either dispose of the case itself, or (b) determine the said question of law and return the case to the court from which the case has been so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on such question, and the said shall on receipt thereof proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment. " Considering that the applicants are relying on various Articles of the Constitution of India to show that the Act is ultra vires, we are of opinion that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in the case and the proper course for the applicants was to apply to us under Art. 228 of the Constitution of India. There is another statutory provision of the Civil Procedure Code also of which the applicants could have taken advantage. The proviso to sec. 113 Civil Procedure code lays down that : - "where a court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or regulation or of any provision contained in an Act. Ordinance or regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case and is of opinion that such Act. Ordinance, regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that court: is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court. " The applicants could have applied to the court where the suit was pending and if the court was satisfied that a reference was necessary, it would have referred the question to the High Court for determination. The applicants however, did not avail themselves of the statutory remedy provided by the proviso to sec. 113 of the Civil Procedure Code or the constitutional remedy provided under Art. 228 of the Constitution. What they have done is that they filed an application under Art. 226 about two years after the suit was filed against them. We are of opinion that where these two specific remedies are open to the applicants, we should not interfere under our extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226. We, therefore, reject this application with costs to the opposite parties. . ;