Subsequently, on October 17, 1952, by virtue of the same powers and in supersession of all other earlier numberifications issued in that behalf the Government purported to prescribe a rate as the lower rate of maximum rent at which the rent shall be payable by the tenants in respect of the lands situate in the areas specified in Schedule I appended to it.
Amongst the areas thus specified was the area in which the appellants lands are situated.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 30, 1953, of the former Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, B. Ganapathy Iyer, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
M. Limaye, Mrs. E. Udayaratnam and S. S. Shukla, for the appellants in both the appeals .
It is unnecessary to set out the rates thus prescribed it would be enough to state that the rate of maximum rent prescribed by this numberification is very much lower than the rate which had been fixed by the earlier one.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
They also claimed a direction or order to the opponents directing them to cancel or withdraw the impugned numberification.
GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The appellants in these two appeals had filed two separate petitions under Art.
Accordingly they prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order against the Government, the Mamlatdar of the area companycerned and their respective tenants prohibiting them or any one of them from giving effect to the said numberification.
The Judgment of Sinha, C. J., Kapur, Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.,
147 148 of 1955.
1008 and 1611 of 1953.
The appellants then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court, and it is with the said certificate that they have companye to this Court by their two appeals.
August 25.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar, J. Subba Rao, J., delivered a separate judgment.
