1. This was a Rule calling upon the Opposite Party to showcause why the application (made by the Petitioner) under section 18 of the RentAct for revision of the order of the Rent Controller should not be heard by thePresident of the Improvement Tribunal: or, in the alternative, why the order ofthe Rent Controller should not be set aside and such other order passed as tothis Court may seem proper.

2. It appears that the Petitioner applied to the RentController for fixing the standard rent of certain premises occupied by theOpposite Party as tenant. The Rent Controller discussed certain matters in hisjudgment and was of opinion that the rent paid by the tenant was fair, but hedid not fix the standard rent and dismissed the application. The Petitionerthen applied to the President of the Tribunal under Sec. 18 of the Rent Act.The learned President held that the order of the Controller could not beregarded as a decision fixing the standard rent of the premises concerned, andthat Sec. 18 of the Act did not confer any jurisdiction upon him to revise suchan order. The Petitioner thereupon obtained this Rule.

3. As there was no decision by the Rent Controller fixingthe standard rent, the learned President was right in holding that he had nojurisdiction under Sec. 18 of the Rent Act to revise the order.

4. The next question is whether the order of the RentController should be set aside by us and he should be directed to fix thestandard rent.

5. A preliminary objection has been taken by the OppositeParty to the hearing of this Rule on the ground that the Rent Controller is nota Court of Civil Jurisdiction, and that even if he is, the High Court has nopower of revising his orders.

6. Now, R. 24 of the Rules framed by the Local Governmentunder Sec. 23 of the Calcutta Rent Act, lays down that in all proceedingsbefore them under the Act, the Controller and the President of the Tribunalshall have all the powers possessed by a Civil Court for the trial of suits.See also S. 4 which says that in making inquiries under the Act, the Controlleror President of the Tribunal shall follow, as nearly as may be the procedurelaid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the regular trial of suits,the substance only of the evidence being recorded as in appealable cases.

7. It is clear, therefore, that the Rent Controller is aCourt of Civil jurisdiction. The same view has been taken in Civil RevisionCase No. 322 of 1921. [Bata Krishna Pramanik v. A.K. Roy A.I.R. 1931 Cal. 413].

8. Then the question is whether the High Court has the powerof revising the order of the Rent Controller under Sec 107 of the Government ofIndia Act.

9. There is no doubt that under See. 15 of the Charter Act(now Sec. 107 of the Government of India Act), the High Court has power ofsuperintendence over all Courts subject to its Appellate Jurisdiction.

10. The question whether the High Court has the power ofrevising the orders of Courts (other than Civil Courts) exercising civiljurisdiction, under its general powers of superintendence under Sec. 15 of theCharter has been considered in several cases in connection with orders of theCollectors Court under Rent Act X of 1859 and under the Land Acquisition Act.One of the earliest cases on the point is Govind Coomar Chowdhuri v. KristoGoomar Chowdhuri (1867) B.L.R. Sup. 714 = 7 W.R. 520 = 21 J.N.S. 199, where itwas held by the Full Bench that the High Court has the power of revising anorder of the Deputy Collector under Act X of 1859. In the case of NilmoneySingh Deo v. Taranath Mukherjee (1882) 9 Cal. 295 : 9 I.A. 174 = 12 C.L.R. 361= 4 Sar. 392 (P.C.), it was held by the Judicial Committee that the High Courthas power to interfere with the orders of the Collector under Act X of 1859.See also the case of Chaitan Patjasi Mahaputra v. Kunja Behary Patnaik (1911)38 Cal. 832 [LQ/CalHC/1911/318] = 14 C.L.J. 284 = 11 I.C. 207 = : 15 C.W.N. 863.Then, again, in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, it has been heldthat the order of the Collector when acting judicially is subject to revisionby the High Court. See Administrator-General of Bengal v. Land AcquisitionCollector, 24 Pergunnahs (1905) 12 C.W.N. 241 and Krishna Das Roy v. LandAcquisition Collector of Patna (1911) 16 C.W.N. 927 = 13 I.C. 470 = 18 C.L.J.165.

11. Under the Calcutta Rent Act in the recent Civil RevisionCase No. 401 of 1921 [Kali Dasi v. Kannai Lal De : A.I.R.1921 Cal. 486, [LQ/CalHC/1921/259] the High Court, Appellate Side, revised an order of the RentController and in Civil Revision Case No. 322 of 1921 [Bata Krishna Pramanik v.A.K. Roy A.I.R. 1931 Cal. 413] it revised an order of the President of theTribunal.

12. It is to be observed that under sec. 18 of the Rent Actan application against the decision of the Controller fixing the standard rentis to be made to the President of the Tribunal appointed under Sec. 72 of theCalcutta Improvement Act in respect of premises in Calcutta, and such anapplication in respect of premises outside Calcutta is to be made to theprincipal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in the District. Such principalCivil Court is certainly within the Appellate Jurisdiction of the High Court.As stated above, the President of the Tribunal is also within the Appellate(Revisional) Jurisdiction of this Court.

13. We are accordingly of opinion that I this Court has thepower of revision under its general powers of superintendence over the RentControllers Court under Sec. 107 of the Government of India Act.

14. The next question is whether in the present case theorder of the Rent Controller should be revised.

15. Now, sec. 15, sub-sec. (1) lays down that the Controllershall, on application made to him by any landlord or tenant, grants certificatecertifying the standard rent of any premises leased or rented by such landlordor tenant, as the case may be.

16. The Rent Controller has in the present case gone intothe question of rent, and has expressed his opinion that the existing rent isfair, and even in one place of his judgment he has stated that the present routmay be the standard rent of the premises under sec. 2 (f), (ii) but he has notfixed the standard rent. If be had fixed the standard rent, the Petitionedmight have asked the President of the Tribunal to revise the order under sec.18 of the Act.

17. It is contended on behalf of the Opposite Party that thePetitioner applied for fixing the standard rent and not, for certifying thestandard rent. But the standard rent cannot be certified unless it is firstfixed.

18. The Rent Controller says that the application does notlie because it was made before the expiry of the lease. We do not see, however,anything to prevent an application being made before the expiry of the leasefor fixing the standard rent.

19. We are of opinion that the Rent Controller was asked tofix the standard rent and certify it under the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Act.

20. We do not express any opinion on any question as to themerits of the case which must He dealt with by the Rent Controller.

21. We accordingly set aside the order of the RentController and direct him to fix the standard rent according to law. Costs twogold mohurs, to abide the result.

22. We trust the case will be taken up by the RentController as early as possible.

.

H.D. Chatterjee vs.L.B. Tribedi (22.08.1921 - CALHC)