Skip to content


Raja Ram Vs. Sham Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 388 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1954P& H208
ActsEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 4
AppellantRaja Ram
RespondentSham Lal and anr.
Appellant Advocate H.L. Sarin, Adv.
Respondent Advocate C.L. Aggarwal, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredBrij Raj Krishna v. S. K. Shaw and Brothers
Excerpt:
.....on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept..........the application for the fixation of the rent was made? the madras high court has in four different cases held that the date of the application is the relevant date. see -- 'rajammal v. chief judge, court of sm. c. c. madras', air 1950 mad 185 (a); -- 'dr. g. v. subba rao v. deviji govindji', air 1950 mad 555 (b); -- 'george oakes ltd., v. chief judge sm. c. c., madras', air 1951 mad 222 co. and -- 'hari rowji v. malabar district board, kozhikode', air 1951 mad 493 (d). i have also been referred to the decision of kapur j., in an unreported case, -- 'sheo shankar v. g. d. kha-nna', civil revn. no. 340 of 1948 (e), and mr. chiranjiva lal aggarwal has drawn my attention to a decision of the supreme court which has some bearing on the facts of this case, -- 'brij raj krishna v. s. k......
Judgment:
ORDER

Khosla, J.

1. The point for decision in this second appeal is from what date the rent fixed by the Rent Controller takes effect. Does it take effect from the date upon which the rent was fixed by the Rent Controller or on appeal by the appellate authority or from the date on which the application for the fixation of the rent was made? The Madras High Court has in four different cases held that the date of the application is the relevant date. See -- 'Rajammal v. Chief Judge, Court of Sm. C. C. Madras', AIR 1950 Mad 185 (A); -- 'Dr. G. V. Subba Rao V. Deviji Govindji', AIR 1950 Mad 555 (B); -- 'George Oakes Ltd., v. Chief Judge Sm. C. C., Madras', AIR 1951 Mad 222 CO. and -- 'Hari Rowji v. Malabar District Board, Kozhikode', AIR 1951 Mad 493 (D). I have also been referred to the decision of Kapur J., in an unreported case, -- 'Sheo Shankar v. G. D. Kha-nna', Civil Revn. No. 340 of 1948 (E), and Mr. Chiranjiva Lal Aggarwal has drawn my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court which has some bearing on the facts of this case, -- 'Brij Raj Krishna v. S. K. Shaw and Brothers', AIR 1951 S. C. 115 (P). This matter is likely to arise in other cases and I therefore feel, though somewhat reluctantly, that it should be considered by a larger Bench. I therefore direct that these papers be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for the constitution of a Division Bench to hear this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //