JAITUNBI & OTHERS ETC. Vs. SMT. HALIMABI ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals against the judgments of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging therein orders passed by the Rent Control Authorities 'and the Co-operative Courts, claim their maintainability under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court.

(2.) Mr. Chandurkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that for the matters listed in Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960, as provided, petition can lie under Articles 226 and 227. Mr. Chandurkar, therefore, tried to assert that in view of the decision of Supreme Court in a case of Umaji Keshao Meshram Vs. Smt. Radhikabai, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1272 (hereinafter referred to as "Umaji's case") a decision of the learned Single Judge ?in a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227, claiming a relief of quashing orders of the Tribunal or Court, is appealable under Clause 15 Such relief according to Mr. Chandurkar, can be granted by issuing writ of certiorari. He adverted that relief of quashing impugned orders can also be granted under Art. 227, in justice and fair play is no ground to deprive the party of valuable right of appeal.

(3.) With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have gone through the report of decision in Umaji's case. The Supreme Court has observed :