SOUTH ASIA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD. versus S. B. SARUP SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 18-01-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

756 
soum ASIA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD. 
v. 
S. B. SARUP SINGH AND OTHERS 
January 18, 1965 
A 
(K, SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, R. S. BACHAWAT AND 
• 
V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore, els. 10, 11-Delhl 
Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958), ss. 39, 43-Sing/e Judge deci. 
sions-Appeal under Letters Patent-Whether taken away 
by 
legisla· 
ture-"Fina/" meaning of- Appeal under a statute If includes Letters 
PaJent Appeal. 
The respondents filed an application before the Controller under 
s. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for the eviction of the appellant. Tho 
Controller allowed the petition and an appeal by the appellant was dis-
missed by the Rent Control Tribunal, against which a second appeal 
was filed in the High Court under s. 39 of the Act. This second appeal 
was dismissed by the Single Judge and when a further appeal under cl. 1 J 
of the Letters Patent came up for disposal before a Di\ision Bench, it was 
dismissed as not maintainable. In appeal 
HELD : (i) An appeal to the High Court will be regulated by tho 
practice and procedure obtaining in the High Court. 
Under the rules 
made by the High Court in exercise of the powers conferred on :jt under 
s. 108 of the Government of India Act, an appeal under s. 39 of the 
Delhi Rent Control Act will be heard by a Single Judge. Any judgment 
made by the Single Judge in the said appeal will, under cl. 10 of the 
Letters Patent, be subject to an appeal to that Court. If the order mado 
by a Single Judge is a judgment and 
if 
the appropriate 
Legislature 
has, expressly or by necessary implication not taken away the right of 
appeal, the conclusion is inevitable that an appeal shall lie from the judg· 
ment ·of a Single Judge under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent to the High 
Court. (765 D-E] 
National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. lames Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. 
(1953] S.C.R. 1028, National Telephone Co. Ltd. v. Postniiister-General, 
(1913) A.C. 546, R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar v. Ra. 
Chandra.<e· 
khara Thevar, (1947) I.A. 264, Secretary of State for India v. Che/li-
kpni Rama Rao, (1916) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 617, Maung Ba Thaw v. Ma 
Pin, (1934) L.R. 61 I.A. 158 and Hem Singh v. Basant Das, A.LR. 1936 
P.C. 93, relied on. 
(ii) The expression "final" may have a restrictive meaning in other 
contexts, but in s. 43 of the Act such a restrictive meaning cannot be 
given and it indicates that no furl.her appeal is contemplated 3.gainst the 
order passed on appeal against the order of the Tribunal. (766 G-H; 768 
Bl 
Maung Ba Thaw v. Ma Pin, (1934) L.R. 61 I.A. 
158, Kydd v. 
Liverpool Watch Committee, (1908) AC. 327 and Secretary of State 
v. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., A.LR. 1931 P.C. 149. 
referred to. 
(iii) An appeal under s. 39(1) of the Act and an appeal under 
cl. 10 of the Letters Patent do not form part of a single appeal. Tbey 
are in law and in fact different appea~ne given by the statute and the 
other by the Letters Patent. 
The expression "apoeal" in s. 39 . of the 
Act does not take in a Letters Patent Appeal under cl. to of the Letters 
Patent. (769 F-Hl 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
H 
r . 
ASIA INDUSTRIES v. SAllUP (Subba Rao, J.) 
757 
A 
Union of India v. Mahindra Supply Company, [196.2] 3 S.C.R. 497 
and Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v. Kamal Distillery Co. Ltd. (1964] 1 S.C.R. 
270, relied on. 
B 
Radha Mohan Pathak v. Upendra Patowary, A.I.R. 1962 Assam 71 
and Hanskumar Kishanchand v. Union of India. (1959] S.C.R. 1177, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 726 of 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 11, 
1963 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi) in 
LP.A. No. 85-D of 1963. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Veda V,vasa, P. N. Chaddha, S. K. 
C Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appeilant. 
Gopal Singh, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
Gurcharan Singh Bakshi and Gopal Singh, for respondents 
Nos. 3 to 5. 
D 
The Judgment of the Coutt was delivered by 
Subba Rao, J. . This appeal by certificate raises the question 
whether an appeal lies under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent for the 
High Court of Lahore, to a Divi>ion Bench of the Punjab High 
Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge of the said 
E High Court in a second appeal under s. 39 of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958), hereinafter called the 
Act. 
The facts relevant to the question raised may be briefly stated. 
The respondents are the owners of plot No. 5, Connaught Circus, 
New Delhi. 
Messrs.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.