146/ per month.
L. R. 8 Punjab, 639.
Appeal by special leave from judgment and order dated January 5, 1955, of the Punjab High Court of Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Misc.
See Roshan Lal Mehrau .Ishwar Dass 1962 2 S.C.R.947.
The facts in relation thereto were these.
It is obvious that it was an application which had been filed far beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the rules of this Court.
227 of the Constitution challenging the companyrectness and propriety of every finding by the Rent Controller and of the District Judge on appeal.
These proceedings have had a chequered history which it is number material to set out, but suffice it to say that the Rent Controller, Delhi, companyputed the fair rent for the entire building at Rs.
It is necessary to mention that under the Act the Rent Controller would have bad jurisdiction to entertain the appellants application for the fixation of fair rent and for so fixing it only if the companystruction of the building in question was companypleted after March 24, 1947, but if the companystruction of the building was companypleted earlier the ordinary Civil Courts and number the Rent Controller would have had jurisdiction to determine the matter.
This petition came on for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
476 of 1961.
The date of the companypletion of the first respondents building therefore loomed large in the enquiry before the Rent Controller and that authority recorded a finding on this matter adverse to the first respondent in his order.
565/ p. m. and the fair rent payable by the appellant at Rs.
The first respondent Ram Nath owns a building in Delhi of which, among others, the appellant company was a tenant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Mean while the judgement in British Medical Stores v. Bhagirath Mat 1 was brought tip by way of appeal to this Court, and as the appeal was getting ready to be heard, the appellants applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court even during the pendency in the High Court, of the appeal by it under the Letters Patent.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge to appeal from which the leave was granted was dated January 5, 1955, and the application to this Court seeking leave was 1 1955 I.L.R. 8 Punjab 639.
made on January 5, 1959, i.e., after a lapse of four years.
Thereafter he moved the High Court of the Punjab under Art.
S. Narula, for the respondents Nos.
The appellant moved the Rent Controller Delhi, under S. 7A of the Act for fixation of the fair rent of the portion in its occupation.
C. Chatterjee, Hardayal Hardy and N. N. Keswani, for the appellant.
1 1955 1.
14 of the Constitution.
71/D of 1954.
The landlord first respondent preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller to the learned District Judge, Delhi, but the appeal was dismissed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court holding that s. 7 A of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act , was unconstitutional as violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.
April 18.
From this decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent to a Division Bench.
1 to 3.
A Division Bench of the High Court had sometime previously held in another batch of cases British Medical Stores v. Bhagirath Mal 1 arising under the Act, that s. 7A was unconstitutional and void and following this decision he allowed the petition of the first respondent and set aside the order of the Rent Controller as without jurisdiction, without companysidering the other matters which would arise if the sect ion was valid and the Rent Controller had jurisdiction.
