Mohamad Noor, J.

1. These two applications are directed against two appellate orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Dhanbad, remanding two rent suits to the Deputy Collector for trial on merits. The learned Deputy Collector had held that the suits were not entertainable by the rent Court constituted under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, as the lands to which they related were not agricultural. The suits being valued at less than Rs. 100 each, the plaintiffs appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who held that the lands were agricultural and that the suits lay before the Deputy Collector. He remanded the suits for trial on merits. The defendants have come up in revision. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the plaintiffs that these revisional applications are incompetent as the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in matters arising out of rent suits not exceeding Rs. 100 in, value. Reliance was placed on S. 218, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, which lays down that

In suits referred to in Cl. (2) (c) or clause (7) of S. 139, tried and decided by a Deputy Commissioner, if the amount sued for, or the value of the property claimed, does not exceed one hundred rupees, the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner shall be final, and not open to revision or appeal except as provided in sub-S. (2).
2. There are however certain exceptions with which we are not concerned in the present case Sub-S. (2) then provides that

When any such suit in which, if tried and decided by a Deputy Commissioner, the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner would be final, is tried and decided by a Deputy Collector, an appeal from the judgment of the Deputy Collector shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner.
3. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has argued that in suits of Rs. 100 or less in value the only appeal provided is when the suit is tried by the Deputy Collector and that it lies to the Deputy. Commissioner. Revision is expressly barred, and the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere either Wilder S. 115, Civil P.C., or S. 107, Government of India Act. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Courts of Deputy Collector and Deputy Commissioner when dealing with rent suits are subordinate to the High Court in spite of the fact that no appeal or revision has been provided for to the High Court in suits of value of Rs. 100 or less. S. 224 provides, in rent suit of the value of more than Rs. 100, an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, who is the District Judge for Chota Nagpur, and a second appeal to the High Court. In suits of more than Rs. 5,000 in value an appeal against the decree of the Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner is provided direct to the High Court. It is therefore contended that as appeal lies to this Court from the judgments of the Deputy Collector and Deputy Commissioner in some cases they are subordinate to this Court and subject to its revisional jurisdiction. At any rate, this Court has power of superintendence. The learned Advocate has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sheonandan Prasad Singh v. Emperor, 1918 Pat 103 = 46 I C 977 = 19 Cr L J 833 = 3 Pat L J 581 (F B), where it was held that where a subordinate Court is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court in certain cases only, the right of superintendence exists and its exercise is not confined to cases where a right of appeal lies to the High Court. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kartik Chandra v. Gora Chand (1913) 40 Cal 518 = 20 I C 420 = 17 C L J 593. In view of the authorities on the point I am inclined to hold that the rent Courts of Chota Nagpur are Subordinate to this Court, though in certain class of cases no appeal lies to this Court and the right of superintendence exists. But the matter does not end here. We have to see the extent of this power and how far it has been taken away by express legislative provisions.

4. Now the Code of Civil Procedure does not in its entirety apply to rent suits in Chota Nagpur. S. 265, enumerates those provisions of the Code which are applicable to them. The power of revision is not one of them. The local Government have, however been given power to prescribe by rules that any other provision of the Code shall apply to all or any classes of cases before the Deputy Commissioner. No such rule has however been framed. I am therefore clearly of opinion that the provisions of S. 115, Civil P.C., are not applicable to rent suits in Chota Nagpur. Apart from this, revision is expressly barred in suits of the value of Rs. 100 or less under S. 218, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. This section makes it perfectly clear that the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner shall be final and not open to revision or appeal, except as provided therein, and the only provision is that if a suit is tried by the Deputy Collector, an appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner. This was the view taken by Ross. J., in Ambika Bala Desai v. Gobind Naik, 1928 Pat 567 = 113 I C 697. The power of revision having been taken away by the express provision of law, it is to be considered how far we can interfere under our power of superintendence under the Government of India Act. Assuming that the power of superintendence of this Court is not affected by S. 218, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the question is whether these cases are such that the power should be exercised. It has been repeatedly held that the power of superintendence is to be exercised very sparingly and only in cases where there has been a patent abuse of power by the subordinate Court, and should not be exercised to rectify a wrong decision on a point of law or fact in cases in which the subordinate Court bad jurisdiction to decide those points. Now the question before the trial Court was whether or not the lands for which the rents were claimed were agricultural. This was a dispute which the trial Court was competent to entertain and decide. It decided it in a particular way namely, that the lands were not agricultural and therefore the suit did not lie in the revenue Court. The Additional Deputy Commissioner again, had no doubt a right to entertain the appeal which has expressly been provided for in S. 218, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, and was, competent to decide the issue. He came to the conclusion that the lands were agricultural and therefore the suits were entertainable by the Revenue Court. The utmost which can be urged is that the learned Deputy Commissioner has wrongly decided the question: but this does not justify the exercise of the power of superintendence of this Court.

5. I would therefore reject these applications with costs; hearing fee one gold mohur in each case.

Saunders, J.

6. I agree.