BANKE BEHARI LAL PRAHLADILAL Vs. JAGAN NATH MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the order of the Rent Controller fixing standard rent of the premises comprised in the Prahlad Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, is sought to be impugn- ed on the ground that it is based on calculations which are manifestly erroneous.

(2.) The petitioner, Banke Behari Lal, purchased some plots on which he made certain constructions. In his application dated 24th of October, 1950, from which he later tried to resile, the petitioner himself requested the Rent Controller to fix standard rent of these premises. The Rent Controller fixed the standard rent of these premises by his order dated 30th of May, 1951. Mr. S. S. Dulat (now Mr. Justice Dulat), as the Appellate Tribunal, rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 25th of May, 1952. A revision petition from the order of Mr. Dulat was also dismissed by the High Court. While the petition for revision was still pending, the petitioner moved this Court for a writ of certiorari.

(3.) In effect, the mode of calculation adopted by the Rent Controller for fixing the standard rent is challenged by way of certiorari proceedings. Various reasons have been advanced both in the petition and in the arguments addressed by the learned counsel to challenge the procedure adopted by the Rent Controller. It has been equally strenuously urged on behalf of the respondents who are tenants of these premises, that the Rent Controller acted fairly and justly inasmuch as the standard rent he fixed was in proximity with the claim made by the petitioner. In my judgment, it is not at all permissible to go into the merits of these contentions in writ proceedings. The aid of this Court can only be invoked where it is required to keep the Tribunal within the bounds of its authority or there is a manifest error of law in its proceedings. Plainly, the matter which has been agitated by the counsel for the petitioner, is pre-eminently one of fact on which there may be differences of opinion. What is really contended for by the learned counsel is to go into the merits of the controversy with re-gard to the method which should be adopted in the fixation of standard rent. As observed by Lord Justice Morris in Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 1952-1 KB 338 (357) a writ of certiorari will not issue as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. "Certiorari does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for rehearing of the issue raised in the proceedings. It exists to correct error of law where revealed on the face of an order or decision, or irregularity, or absence of, or excess of, "jurisdiction where show".