1965 (1) TMI 68 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an appeal lies under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore to a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge in a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. Interpretation of Sections 39 and 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
3. Applicability and scope of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
4. Finality of the judgment under Section 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent:
The core issue was whether an appeal lies under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore to a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge in a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellant argued that Section 39 of the Act confers a right of appeal from an order of the Rent Control Tribunal to the High Court, and once the appeal reaches the High Court, it must exercise its jurisdiction in the same manner as it exercises other appellate jurisdictions. Therefore, the judgment of a single Judge in such an appeal should be subject to an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. Interpretation of Sections 39 and 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
Section 39(1) of the Act provides a right of appeal to the High Court from an order made by the Tribunal, subject to the condition that the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Section 43 states that every order made by the Controller or an order passed on appeal under the Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application, or execution proceeding. The respondents argued that the Act confers a special jurisdiction on the High Court, and the judgment in such an appeal does not attract Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. They further contended that Section 43 makes the judgment of a single Judge in an appeal under Section 39 final, thereby modifying Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

3. Applicability and Scope of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent:
Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, as amended in 1928, provides for an appeal to the High Court from the judgment of a single Judge, except in certain specified cases. The Court noted that the first part of Clause 10 is general and allows for an appeal from the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court, whether the judgment is made in the exercise of appellate, revisional, or criminal jurisdiction. The Court observed that the clause does not distinguish between appellate jurisdiction over Courts and Tribunals, and if a law made by a competent legislative authority declares a case to be subject to appeal to the High Court, Clause 10 is attracted. The Court also referred to the decision in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd., which held that when a statute directs that an appeal shall lie to a Court already established, the appeal must be regulated by the practice and procedure of that Court.

4. Finality of the Judgment under Section 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
The Court held that the expression "final" in Section 43 of the Act connotes that an order passed on appeal under the Act is conclusive and no further appeal lies against it. The finality imposed by Section 43 is not limited to collateral proceedings but also bars further appeals. The Court emphasized that the Act is a self-contained code providing an exhaustive mechanism for disposing of appeals arising under it. The opening words of Section 43, "save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act," underscore the intention of the Legislature to preclude further appeals beyond what is specified in the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was not maintainable as the finality clause in Section 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, precluded any further appeal beyond the single Judge's decision. The appeal was dismissed with costs.