SEKU ROWTHOR Vs. RUGMANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution for quashing the appellate order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Palghat under S.17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The petitioner had filed a petition for fixing the fair rent of certain properties stated to have been taken on lease from the respondent. The application was opposed by the respondent landlordon the ground that it was not maintainable. The grounds relied on in support of the objection were that all the items constituting the holding were not shown in the petition, that one item of property which was not covered by the lease was included in the petition, that the petitioner had subleased the property and was therefore incompetent to apply for fixing the fair rent, and that he was a coowner of one of the items shown in the petition. Upholding these objections the Rent Court dismissed the petition. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge of Palghat held the last point in favour of the petitioner but found all the other points against him. It was also held that an appeal would lie only from an order fixing the fair rent and not one refusing to do so and that the appeal was therefore incompetent. The petitioner seeks to have this decision quashed.

(2.) Before considering the matter on the merits we may observe that the jurisdiction of this court under Art.227 is very limited. The scope of an application under Art.227 was considered by a special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Dalmia Jain Airways v. Sukumar Mukherjee ( AIR 1951 Cal. 193 ). Harris, C. J., held:

(3.) The main point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Subordinate Judge who held that the appeal was not maintainable failed to exercise his jurisdiction. It is contended that this view of the learned Judge is wrong. S.17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act which provides fox appeal against orders of Rent Courts is in these terms: