Shamsher Bahadur, J.
1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the order of the Rent Controller fixing standard rent of the premises comprised in the Prahlad Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, is sought to be impugn-ed on the ground that it is based on calculations which are manifestly erroneous.
2. The petitioner, Banke Behari Lal, purchased some plots on which he made certain constructions. In his application dated 24th of October, 1950, from which he later tried to resile, the petitioner himself requested the Rent Controller to fix standard rent of these premises. The Rent Controller fixed the standard rent of these premises by his order dated 30th of May, 1951. Mr. S. S. Dulat (now Mr. Justice Dulat), as the Appellate Tribunal, rejected the appeal ofthe petitioner on 25th of May, 1952.
A revision petition from the order of Mr. Dulat was also dismissed by the High Court. While the petition for revision was still pending, the petitioner moved this Court for a writ ofcertiorari.
3. In effect, the mode of calculation adopted by the Rent Controller for fixing the standard rent is challenged by way of certiorari proceedings. Various reasons have been advanced both in the petition and in the arguments addressed by the learned counsel to challenge the procedure adopted by the Rent Controller. It has been equally strenuously urged on behalf of the respondents who are tenants of these premises, that the Rent Controller acted fairly and justly inasmuch as the standard rent he fixed was in proximity with the claim made by the petitioner. In my judgment, it is not at all permissible to go into the merits of these contentions in writ proceedings.
The aid of this Court can only be invoked where it is required to keep the Tribunal within the bounds of its authority or there is a manifest error of law in its proceedings. Plainly, the matter which has been agitated by the counsel forthe petitioner, is pre-eminently one of fact onwhich there may be differences of opinion. What is really contended for by the learned counsel is to go into the merits of the controversy with re-gard to the method which should be adopted in the fixation of standard rent. As observed by Lord Justice Morris in Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 1952-1 KB 338(357) a writ of certiorari will not issue as thecloak of an appeal in disguise.
'Certiorari does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for rehearing of the issue raised in the proceedings. It exists to correct error of law where revealed on the face of an order or decision, or irregularity, or absence of, or excess of, 'jurisdiction where show'.
4. This Court is slow to interfere with the findings of tribunals when their decisions are liable to be corrected by appellate authorities. It is only where a statutory tribunal is called upon to decide or interpret questions of law from which no appeal or revision is Provided, that the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers would quash the proceedings if the order of a tribunal discloses, or 'speaks' of, an error of law. Lord Justice Singleton in the case of Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 1952-1 KB 338 stated thus at pages 345-46:
'There was no way other than this by whichthe mistake could be rectified ..... the Court should not hesitate to act to prevent an injustice being done, if the remedy sought is within the scope of its powers. Much time has been expended in recent years in considering whether in particular circumstances certiorari, or prohibition, will lie .... These regulations are of great complexity. The interpretation of them is left to the tribunal; there is no provision for an appeal to the Courts. That Position arises frequently nowadays .....'
In the present case, there is no room for the anxiety which was felt by Lord Justice Singleton as the order of the Rent Controller was subject to appeal and the remedy was availed of by the petitioner, who even went up to the High Court in revision.
5. In Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398, it was observed by Mr. Justice B. P. Sinha (now Chief Justice Sinha) at page 412, that
'SO far as we know, it has never been contended before this Court that an error of fact, even though apparent on the face of the record, could be a ground for interference by the Court exercising its writ jurisdiction. No ruling was brought to our notice in support of the proposition that the Court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, could quash an order of the inferior tribunal, on the ground of a mistake of fact apparent on the face of the record'.
6. In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and Mr. Ram Lal Anand has made no attempt to show that any documentary evidence has been misread by the Rent Controller in arriving at this conclusion.
7. In this view of the matter, the present application is dearly misconceived and is dismissed with costs.