A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case Waryam Singh and Another v. Amarnath and Another (1954 SCR 565) is a cornerstone precedent in Indian constitutional jurisprudence interpreting Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which confers supervisory jurisdiction on High Courts over all subordinate courts and tribunals. The Supreme Court discussed whether the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh had jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere in proceedings decided by the Rent Controller and District Judge under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The tenants had defaulted in rent payment, and the Rent Controller refused to pass an eviction order, despite the statutory requirement under Section 13(2)(i). The Supreme Court upheld the Judicial Commissioner’s intervention, affirming that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 includes the power of judicial superintendence, not just administrative control. The ruling emphasized that subordinate authorities must act within the bounds of law and cannot arbitrarily withhold relief when statutory mandates are clear. The decision clarified the constitutional scope of Article 227, asserting its essential role in maintaining judicial discipline.

Keywords: Article 227 Constitution of India, Judicial Superintendence, Rent Controller, Himachal Pradesh, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, Default in Rent Payment

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Waryam Singh and Another v. Amarnath and Another

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1953

iii) Judgement Date
19 January 1954

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Mehr Chand Mahajan C.J., B.K. Mukherjea, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, and Ghulam Hasan JJ.

vi) Author
Justice S.R. Das

vii) Citation
[1954] SCR 565

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 227 of the Constitution of India

• Article 241 of the Constitution of India

• Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as extended to Himachal Pradesh)

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
None explicitly overruled

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects

• Constitutional Law

• Rent Control and Tenancy Law

• Civil Procedure

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal raised a significant constitutional question regarding the scope and ambit of Article 227. The appellants, tenants under a rent deed dated 11 October 1947, had fallen into arrears for the year 1950. Upon filing of an eviction petition by the landlord under Section 13(2)(i) of the Rent Restriction Act, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition even though arrears were admitted. An appeal to the District Judge met the same fate. Eventually, invoking Articles 226 and 227, the landlord approached the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh, who intervened, correcting the arbitrary action of the subordinate courts. The Supreme Court was called to examine whether the Commissioner had such jurisdiction under Article 227 and whether the refusal to pass an eviction order was an error justifying constitutional intervention. The Court ruled affirmatively on both counts, thereby expanding the horizon of supervisory jurisdiction vested in High Courts and equivalent forums under Article 227.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants were tenants of a shop in Solan Bazar, Himachal Pradesh. Under a written agreement, they had to pay an annual rent of Rs. 175. They defaulted in paying rent for 1948 and 1949 but availed themselves of the benefit of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) by paying arrears during the proceedings. When they again defaulted for the year 1950, the landlord initiated eviction proceedings under the same provision. The tenants responded by seeking fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Act. The Rent Controller held that although arrears existed, eviction was not appropriate, suggesting a civil suit would be more suitable. The District Judge concurred, justifying the default as arising from confusion over the fair rent application. However, the Judicial Commissioner held this reasoning arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction, as the tenants had not complied with the statutory obligation of paying rent by the first hearing. The Commissioner reversed the lower courts and passed an order of eviction, giving the tenants three months to vacate. This action triggered the current appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Article 227 empowers the Judicial Commissioner to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over Rent Controllers and District Judges in Himachal Pradesh.

ii) Whether the failure of the tenants to pay arrears of rent disentitled them from protection under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Rent Act.

iii) Whether the lower courts acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction in dismissing the eviction petition despite the admitted default.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that

The Court of the Judicial Commissioner lacked supervisory jurisdiction over the Rent Controller and District Judge under Article 227. They argued that the powers of the Judicial Commissioner under Article 241 did not include judicial superintendence. They also emphasized that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was merely administrative, relying on clause (2) of Article 227 to argue that the High Court could not judicially review the acts of subordinate tribunals under this article. They contended that the eviction petition was unjustified since the tenants had applied for the fixation of fair rent, which stayed the requirement to pay under the rent deed. According to them, the courts below exercised discretion that should not be overturned in supervisory proceedings.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that

The respondents contended that the Rent Controller and District Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them under Section 13(2)(i) of the Rent Act. The non-payment of rent was admitted, and no legal protection was available to the tenants. They argued that the proviso to the section provided a specific window for payment—by the first hearing—which was not complied with. Thus, the authorities were statutorily bound to order eviction. The lower courts’ refusal to do so was arbitrary and ultra vires the Act. The respondents further submitted that Article 227, when read with Article 241, empowered the Judicial Commissioner to ensure that tribunals act within their legal boundaries and discharge duties imposed by law. They relied on past judicial interpretations of supervisory powers under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 and Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935, arguing that the Constitution restored and extended judicial superintendence to include tribunals.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Link to Article 227 – Indian Kanoon
Provides for superintendence of every High Court over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories over which it exercises jurisdiction.

ii) Article 241 of the Constitution of India
Link to Article 241 – Indian Kanoon
Governs the powers of High Courts and judicial authorities in Union Territories and other specified areas.

iii) Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
Link to Section 13(2)(i) – Indian Kanoon
Mandates eviction of a tenant who has failed to pay arrears of rent unless the tenant pays the arrears on the first date of hearing.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that the Judicial Commissioner had supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 read with Article 241, as both the Rent Controller and District Judge were tribunals functioning within Himachal Pradesh. The Court clarified that Article 227 encompasses judicial superintendence, not merely administrative, citing the absence of Section 224(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 in the Constitution. The failure of the lower courts to apply the clear statutory mandate of Section 13(2)(i) amounted to an arbitrary refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Therefore, the Judicial Commissioner acted rightly in setting aside their orders and directing eviction.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court emphasized that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should be exercised sparingly, only to keep tribunals within their legal bounds and not to correct mere errors of law or fact. This serves as a constitutional safeguard against judicial overreach.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 includes judicial superintendence, not just administrative control.

• It can be invoked when subordinate authorities fail to discharge mandatory legal duties.

• Courts must not arbitrarily refuse relief where statutes leave no room for discretion.

• Rent Controllers and District Judges, though not courts in a technical sense, are tribunals under Article 227.

• Such supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to correcting every error, but only to rectify jurisdictional lapses.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case is one of the earliest constitutional interpretations of Article 227 post-1950. It laid the foundation for the doctrine of judicial superintendence in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court rightly recognized that constitutional remedies must be robust to ensure that subordinate tribunals perform their duties legally. The ruling demonstrates judicial restraint while simultaneously asserting constitutional supremacy. The precision in interpreting jurisdictional overreach and refusal to exercise jurisdiction became a key precedent. Even today, this judgment remains a guiding authority in supervisory writ petitions under Article 227 across Indian High Courts.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i) Moti Lal v. The State through Shrimati Sagrawati, ILR [1952] 1 All. 558
ii) Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee, AIR 1951 Cal. 193

b. Important Statutes Referred
i) Constitution of India, Article 227 and 241
ii) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2)(i)
iii) Government of India Act, 1915, Section 107
iv) Government of India Act, 1935, Section 224