MADHO RAM VAID Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is styled as a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein I am requested to set aside the order of the District Judge, Mahasu, acting as an appellate authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh. The petition bears court-fee stamps of Rs. 2/-. There is an office objection to the effect that the petition should bear court-fees of Rs. 10/- under Article 22 of Schedule II of the Court-fees (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1952. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the court-fee paid is sufficient, since the petition does not fall under Article 22 but under Article l(d)(iii) to the Second Schedule.

(2.) Since a question of court-fee was involved, notice was issued to the learned Government Advocate and I have heard him as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of court-fee. Article 22 of Schedule. II would apply if the present application can be deemed to be either an application or memorandum of appeal for relief under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh. It is true that the petition arises out of proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, but that would not necessarily convert this into an application for relief under that Act. As was held in--'Pitman's Shorthand Academy v. B. Lila Ram and Sons', AIR 1950 EP 181 (A):

(3.) It would be obvious from the above that the powers of judicial superintendence conferred on this Court, by Article 227 are independent of this Court's revisional powers. As their Lordships have pointed out, those powers of superintendence conferred by Article 227 are to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority. Thus, this is an extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court and such jurisdiction can be exercised not only with reference to a case arising out Of a Punjab Urban Bent Restriction Act, but to all cases. Such jurisdiction is exercised, not to grant 'relief as contemplated under Article 22 of Schedule II but to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority. It, therefore, follows that the case would be governed not by Article 22, Schedule II, but by Article l(d) (ii). The court-fee paid (Rs. 2/-) is thus sufficient. The heading of the petition is misleading. It should have been styled as a petition under Article 227.