1951 (4) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....occupying a rented house for his residential purposes and running a cloth-shop in another rented house in Nagpur; that as the members of his family did not keep good health in the house occupied by them and as he found that it would be more convenient to stay in the same house in the upper flat and to carry on his business on the ground floor he purchased by registered sale-deed the house in question, at present in the occupation of the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, for ₹ 25,000 the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 being the tenants of the vendor. [2] The petitioner made an application to the Rent Controller, Nagpur, in revenue case No. 505/ 33-7 of 1949 50 on 10-12-1949 for permission to serve notice to the opposite parties 2 and 3 fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a monthly rent of ₹ 75 and that it was not shown that the shop premises occupied by the petitioner were either inconvenient or insufficient for the purposes of the trade carried on by the petitioner. He further held that under Cl 13 (3) (vi) (a) and (c) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order of 1949 "it has to be proved that the need to occupy the house is genuine and bona fide". In his opinion the petitioner had failed to do that. Hence this application. [6] It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Courts below have ignored the provisions of sub-cl. (a) of cl. 13 (3) (vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order of 1949, which is in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f quashing by issuing a writ of certiorari. [9] A very useful discussion of the law on issue or writs of certiorari is contained in the decision of the King's Bench Division in the case of R. V. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, (1951) 1 ALL E. R. 268. In that case, Chief Justice Lord Goddard has traced the history of the rule as to the circumstances in which a writ of certiorari shall issue. In that case, their Lordships found that the authorities who had been entrusted by the legislature with applying the National Health Service (Transfer of Officers and Compensation) Regulations, 1948, had misconstrued the provisions of those Regulations. It appeared from their orders that they were wrong on the face of them. Their Lordsh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there speaking orders, or, if there were, the Court has proceeded on the same error that the Court of Appeal fell into in the Racecourse Betting Control Board case, (1944) 1 All E. R. 60". [11] That case is therefore an authority for the proposition that where a tribunal, especially created by the statute in question, has stated on the face of its order the grounds on which the order had been made, and in law those grounds were not such as to warrant the decision arrived at by it, certiorari will issue to remove the order into the High Court to be quashed. Applying the principles of that decision to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears to me that it is a fit case in which certiorari should issue and the order p....