JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---A preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In our view, the objection has to be upheld for the following reasons : 2. After considering the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) (Umaji Keshao Meshram and other v. Smt Radhikabai and another)1 A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 1272 and (ii) (The Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve and others)2. Civil Appeal No. 520 of 1989, decided on 27th January, 1989 (1989)3 Bom.C.R. 69 a Full Bench of this Court in the case of (Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliar and others v. Nihalchand Vaghajibhai Shaha and others)3, 1989 Mh.L.J. 695 has laid down certain tests to be applied in deciding the question of maintainability of appeals under clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the judgment of a Single Judge upon a petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which is impugned the order of the Subordinate Court or Tribunal. 3. A reference to Full Bench was necessitated since there was a conflict of view between different Division Benches of this Court upon the correct ratio of Umaji Keshao. The conflict was between the case of (Surekhabai Amrut Asare v. Motilal Prabhudayal Sharma)4, 1987 Mh.L.J. 610 on one hand and the case of (i) (Pushpabai Anandji Gala v. Sukumar Jinnappa Bhore)5, 1988 Mh.L.J. 765 and (ii) (Jaitunbi v. Smt. Halimabi)6, L.P.A. No. 14 of 1988 and 111 of 1988 decided on 21st December, 1988 on the other. 4. The conflict was between the case of (Surekhabai Amrut Asare v. Motilal Prabhudayal Sharma)4, 1987 Mh.L.J. 610 on one hand and the case of (i) (Pushpabai Anandji Gala v. Sukumar Jinnappa Bhore)5, 1988 Mh.L.J. 765 and (ii) (Jaitunbi v. Smt. Halimabi)6, L.P.A. No. 14 of 1988 and 111 of 1988 decided on 21st December, 1988 on the other. 4. In Surekhabai Letters patent appeal arose out of an order on merits passed by the Collector under the Rent Control Order which was challenged by filling a petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 before the learned Single Judge without joining the Collector as a party, objection was raised before the Division Bench that under all these circumstances order passed by the learned Single Judge was in reality under Article 227; and hence appeal did not lie, But it was overruled holding that (i) title of the petition showed that it was under Article 226 read with Article 227 (ii) non-joinder of the Collector was immaterial since such point was not raised before the Single Judge, (iii) relief could be claimed also under Article 226, since Rent Control authorities are quasi judicial in nature amenable to that jurisdiction; and (iv) contents of the petition should be liberally construed so as to allow the parties to have a right of appeal. 5. In Pushpabai Letters Patent Appeal arose out of order of dismissal of suit for possession on merits under the Rent Act which was challenged before the Single Judge by filing a petition under Article 226. Objection to the maintainability of L.P.A. was upheld holding that (i) title of the petition was not decisive and (ii) in substance, relief claimed in the petition and granted by the Single Judge was under Article 227. 6. In Jaitunbi and others the three L.P. As arose out of orders passed on merit by the Rent Control authorities and Co-operative Courts which were challenged by filing a petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution before the Single Judge. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of L.P.A. was upheld holding that (i) title of the petition was not decisive (ii) there was no justification for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 in such matters and (iii) in substance, the relief claimed in the petition and granted by the Single Judge was under Article 227. 7. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of L.P.A. was upheld holding that (i) title of the petition was not decisive (ii) there was no justification for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 in such matters and (iii) in substance, the relief claimed in the petition and granted by the Single Judge was under Article 227. 7. The Full Bench in para 5 of its judgment referred to the following tests laid down by the Supreme Court : (i) Whether facts of the case justify an application either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the substantial part of the order of the learned Single Judge was passed under Article 226 of the Constitution ? (iii) Ancillary relief granted were not relevant for the purpose of deciding the question of maintainability of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent ? and proceeded to explain what the term 'facts justify' used by the Supreme Court connotes and gave the illustrative list of relevant legal principles which can be summarised thus : (i) L.P.A. against the judgment of a Single Judge upon petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 does not lie as a matter of course. (ii) The substance of the petition and/or judgment and not the form should be the decisive factor. (iii) Upon the facts alleged whether a petition either under Article 226 or under Article 227 could be legitimately entertained. (iv) When a combined petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 is filed complaining of a jurisdictional error by a Court or a Tribunal, ordinarily it would be more appropriate to deal with the matter by exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 and not by invoking its extra-ordinary and discretionary original jurisdiction under Article 226, since in such cases alternate adequate remedy is available. (v) In case the Court or Tribunal (i) acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, (ii) fails to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, (iii) violates principle of natural justice or (iv) commits any error apparent on the face of record, a Single Judge has a discretion to exercise powers either under Article 226 or under Article 227 or under both. (vi) In order to decide whether the order passed by the Single Judge is under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, the Division Bench should look into the substance of the order and ascertain what particular jurisdiction the Single Judge has in fact exercised. (vii) If vires of the statute under which the subordinate Court or Tribunal is constituted is challenged or any fundamental right under part III of the Constitution is sought to be enforced, the Single Judge may deal with the matter under his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (viii) If the Single Judges has, in fact, invoked only his supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the L.P.A. would not lie. (ix) If the order passed by the Single Judge specifically mentions the Article under which the relief is granted, it may not be necessary for the Division Bench to elaborately examine the question of maintainability of appeal. (x) When the Single Judge does not mention the Article under which order is passed, the Division Bench may examine the relief granted. (xi) When more than one reliefs are granted by the Single Judge the deciding factor would be the main relief and not the ancillary relief. (xii) When a combined petition filed under both the Article is summarily dismissed without reasons, the appeal Court may consider whether the facts alleged warranted filing of the petition under Article 226 or 227. (xiii) In case of doubt about the maintainability of the appeal, the benefit ought to go in favour of the appellant. 8. It is thus clear that the basic approach made in Pushpabai and Jaitunbi about the substance and not the form being the appropriate determining factor has been answered by the Full Bench. 9. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution by which order passed on merits by the Rent Control authorities was challenged. The learned Single Judge held that the order impugned in the petition was based upon concurrent findings of fact needing no interference in superintending jurisdiction under Article 227. 10. Having regard to the true nature of controversy raised in the petition and the fact that the learned Single Judge has, in fact, exercised jurisdiction under Article 227, it is plain that the present appeal is not maintainable. 11. 10. Having regard to the true nature of controversy raised in the petition and the fact that the learned Single Judge has, in fact, exercised jurisdiction under Article 227, it is plain that the present appeal is not maintainable. 11. Shri Bhangde, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, invited our attention to the conclusion in para 33 of the judgment given by this Court in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Kusum)7, 1981 Mh.L.J. 93. The said decision has been considered by the Supreme Court in Umaji Keshao which have been considered by the Full Bench in Sushilabai. 12. Letters patent appeal is, therefore, dismissed, as not maintainable. No order as to costs. 13. Oral application under Article 134-A of the Constitution for grant of certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1) is rejected, since the question of maintainability of L.P.A. is decided on the basis of Supreme Court judgment. However, request for continuation of interim stay of execution of decree for possession, if passed for a further period of two months, is granted. Appeal dismissed. -----