RANAWAT, J.

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Certain premises were let by Pandit Madhusudan to Shyamdas on a rent of Rs. 35/- per month and the tenant thinking that the rent was too high filed an application in the Court of the Rent Controller on the 3rd of May 1949 for fixation of standard rent, and after taking proceedings in this case the Rent Controller on the 24th of January 1950 fixed the rent of the premises at Rs. 10/- per month exclusive of light and water. Both parties Went in appeal to the Court of the Collector, Jaipur, who, on the 27th of April 1950, increased the vent to Rs. 12/- but included therein the charges for light. Pt. Madhusudhan who is the landlord has now come before this Court in revision and he has raised three objections: (1) That the Rent Controller did not frame any issues before deciding the case. (2) That the Rent Controller and the Collector both acted illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction in determining the standard rent of the premises not in accordance with Schedule II of the Rent Control Order and in fixing the standard rent to Rs. 2/- under Section 6 (2) of the Rent Control Order. (3) That the Controller was wrong in including the electric charges in the standard rent when the question of the electric and water charges had been separately decided by him and the matter had become res judicata.

(3.) The petitioner at the time of the hearing of this case waived the first point and we need not deal with it here.

(4.) Article 227 of the Constitution of India lays down that every High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Under the corresponding Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, "Superintendence" was interpreted to include judicial as well as administrative superintendence vide Sholapur Municipality v. Tulji Ram, AIR (13) 1931 Bom 582 , Emperor v. Jamnadas, AIR (24) 1937 Bom 153.

(5.) Under Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935, the power of superintendence was expressly barred in judicial matters by adding Sub-section (2) to section 224, which ran as follows: "Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving to a High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior Court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision." But under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the same position which obtained under the Government of India Act, 1915, has been revived. The powers of revision under Article 227 can be invoked in case of grave dereliction of duty for which no other remedy is available and which will have [serious consequences if not remedied. The counsel on the opposite side has conceded that this Court has got powers of Superintendence over the Court of the Collector in the matter of fixing the standard rent of the premises under the Rent Control Act in cases where Jurisdiction is exceeded. Section 6 (2) of the Bent Control Order runs as follows: "(2) Where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set forth in the second schedule, the Controller may, on the application of any person interested, or on his own motion, determine the standard rent, and in so doing shall have regard to the standard rents of similar premises in the same locality and other relevant considerations."

(6.) It may be pointed out that the Rent Controller can fix standard rent of the premises under Section 6 (2) only when for any reason it is not possible for him to fix the standard rent of the premises in accordance with the second schedule of the Act. In the present case, both the Rent Controller and the Collector considered the application of second schedule unfair to the tenant because the basic rent perhaps worked out to be higher than the rent of similar premises in the same locality. Both the parties pleaded the existence of data on which basic rent could be fixed by the authorities, but instead if carrying at a finding as to the basic rent, the authorities chose to fix the standard rent under Section 6 (2) instead of in accordance with the second schedule of the Rent Control Order. The Rent Controller and the Collector were both bound ay Section 6 (2) to fix the standard rent on the basis of the basic rent of the premises, in the light of the provisions of the second schedule. Both of them have ignored the provisions of Section 6 (2) and of the second schedule in so doing. They have thus committed an illegality in the exercise of their jurisdiction and they have thus altogether ignored the provisions of law. In cases where grave injustice results by ignoring the provisions of law it becomes the duty of this Court to interfere and to issue a proper direction to the Court or the tribunal to, exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of law.

(7.) In view of the opinion expressed above, on the second point, it is not necessary now to discuss the third point raised by the petitioner.

(8.) This application is allowed and the order of the Collector dated the 27th April 1950 is set aside and he is directed to fix the standard rent of the premises after considering the provisions of the second schedule to the Rent Control Act.