(1.) THIS is an application for the issue of a Writ of 'certiorari' under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the time of arguments, it was desired to press it as an application in revision under Article 227, it being urged that the case was a fit one for interference under its power of superintendence.
(2.) THE applicant Gundappa was a tenant at Rs. 6/ - per month of two mulgies and two rooms belonging to a mosque situate at Station Bazaar, Gulbarga. The rent was later increased to Rs. 11 -8 -0 per month and at a subsequent reassessment made by the Committee in 1358F. the amount was enhanced to Rs. 15/ - per month. The Petitioner considered that the increase was unjustified and he ventilated his grievance in the Court of the Tahsildar by seeking cancellation of the last mentioned enhancement. The Court of the first instance refused to interfere and the decision was upheld in appeal by the Collector of Gulbarga's Gundappa now contends that the Rent Control Order does not apply to the case in view of Section 10, which excludes from its operation buildings etc., whose rent is utilised for educational, charitable and public purposes.
(3.) THE position has been clearly defined in - Sukhdeo v. Brij Bhushan : AIR 1951 All 667; - Narendra Nath v. Binode Behari : AIR 1951 Cal 138; and - Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee : AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB), & it is now well established that the superintendence referred to in the aforementioned Article does not invest the High Court with an unlimited prerogative to interfere in cases where a wrong decision has been arrived at either in fact or in law. The powers enjoyed under it must, we apprehend, be restricted to cases where there has been a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of any fundamental principles of law and natural justice, and they must further be confined to cases where no other adequate or prompt remedy is available. Applying this principle, it is clear that, the present case does not fall within the article.