1946 (4) TMI 26 - HC - Indian Laws

Rent Controller's jurisdiction affirmed at Rs. 270/month; Exhaust appeal process before seeking writs

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Rent Controller's jurisdiction to fix the standard rent at Rs. 270 per month. The court emphasized that a writ of ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to fix the standard rent.2. Appropriateness of issuing a writ of certiorari when an alternative remedy exists.3. Merits of the petition regarding the standard rent determination.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to Fix the Standard Rent:The appellant, a landlady, challenged the order of the Rent Controller fixing the standard rent of her premises at Rs. 270 per month, arguing that the Controller acted without jurisdiction. The premises were initially let out at Rs. 400 per month under a fresh tenancy agreement from July 16, 1943. The Controller's authority to fix standard rent is derived from Section 13 of the Rent Act (Bom. Act VII of 1944), which outlines specific circumstances under which the Controller can exercise this power. The court found that the Controller had jurisdiction as the case fell within the ambit of Section 13(b) of the Act, which allows the Controller to resolve difficulties in giving effect to the Act, including cases where the tenement let out is not identical to the one let out prior to September 1, 1940, or where improvements have been made. The Controller's decision was based on the rival contentions of the tenant and the landlady and was within his jurisdiction to fix the rent at Rs. 270 per month.2. Appropriateness of Issuing a Writ of Certiorari When an Alternative Remedy Exists:The appellant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Rent Controller's order, but the learned Judge dismissed the petition on the grounds that an appeal to the Collector was available under Section 14 of the Rent Act. The court discussed the principle that certiorari is generally not issued when an alternative remedy, such as an appeal, exists unless the lower court or officer acted contrary to fundamental principles of justice. The court referred to various English and Indian cases to support this view, emphasizing that the writ is not a substitute for an appeal and should only be issued in cases of jurisdictional error or breach of fundamental justice. The court concluded that the Controller did not act in a manner contrary to fundamental justice, and the appellant had the remedy of appeal, which she did not pursue.3. Merits of the Petition Regarding the Standard Rent Determination:Although the learned Judge did not decide the petition on its merits, the appellate court was invited to do so. The court examined the facts and found that the Controller had determined the standard rent based on the last letting before September 1, 1940, and added amounts for improvements and hire of appliances. The tenant argued that the tenement was smaller than previously let, while the landlady contended that the entire tenement was let with improvements. The Controller resolved these contentions and fixed the rent at Rs. 270 per month. The court found no jurisdictional error in the Controller's decision, as it was within his powers under Section 13(b) of the Act to address such difficulties and fix the standard rent accordingly.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Rent Controller's jurisdiction and decision to fix the standard rent at Rs. 270 per month. The court also upheld the principle that a writ of certiorari should not be issued when an alternative remedy, such as an appeal, exists unless there is a breach of fundamental justice. The appellant's failure to utilize the available appeal process further justified the dismissal of the petition. The judgment reinforces the limited scope of certiorari and the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking such high prerogative writs.