http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI GOKAL CHAND

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/1966

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1967 AIR  799            1967 SCR  (1) 310  CITATOR INFO :  R          1967 SC1360  (3)  D          1977 SC 403  (9)  RF         1977 SC2185  (7)  R          1980 SC 962  (95)

ACT: Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59 of 1958) s. 38(1)-Appeal from interlocutory order of Controller whether lies to Tribunal.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent who owned a building in which the  appellant was  tent filed an application under the Delhi Rent  Control Act  (59 of 1958) to the Controller for the eviction of  the appellant  from the premises on the ground of his own  need. The  appellant  contended that the respondent did  not  bona fide  need  the premises for his own use and  prayed  for  a commission  to be issued for the purpose of  inspecting  the house in which the respondent was residing.  The  Controller rejected  the appellant’s prayer.  The  appellant  thereupon appealed  to the Rent Control Tribunal.  The  Tribunal  held that  no appeal lay from the aforesaid order under s.  38(1) of  the  Delhi  Rent Control Act 1958 and  on  that  finding dismissed  the  appeal.   The High Court  agreed  into  this decision of the Tribunal.  The appellant came to this  Court by special leave. HELD : The object of s. 38(1) is to give a ’right of  appeal to  a party aggrieved by some order which affects his  right or liability.  In the context of s. 38(1), the words  "every order  of the Controller made under this Act",  though  very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which are  merely procedural  and do not affect the rights or  liabilities  of the parties. [312 E] Interlocutory  orders  are  steps taken  towards  the  final adjudication   and   for  assisting  the  parties   in   the prosecution  of their case in the pending  proceeding;  they regulate  the procedure only and do not affect any right  or liability  of the parties.  The legislature could  not  have intended  that  the parties would be harassed  with  endless expenses  and delay by appeals from such procedural  orders. [312 F-G] However,  even an interlocutory order passed under s.  37(2)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

is  an order passed under the Act and is subject  to  appeal under  s.  383(1)  pro.  vided  it  affects  some  right  or liability  of  any  party.   Thus  an  order  of  the   Rent Controller  refusing  to  set aside an  ex  parte  order  is subject to appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. [312 H] Shankarlal  Aggarwal v. Shankarlal Poddar. [1964]  1  S.C.R. 717, relied on. In  the  present  case,  the  interlocutory  order  of   the Controller  refusing  to  issue  a  commission  wag  only  a procedural  one and therefore no appeal lay to the  Tribunal under s. 38(1). [313 C-D]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1339  of 1966. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated February 8, 1966 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in S.A.0. No. 182-D of 1965. 311 S.   V.  Gupte,  Solicitor-General,  C.  L.  Chopra,  J.  B. Dadachanji for the appellant. Bishan  Narain,  S. S. Chadha and Sardar  Bahadur,  for  the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat,  J. This appeal raises a question of  construction of  s. 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59  of 1958).  The appellant is a tenant of premises No. 7,  Sriram Road,  Delhi, under the respondent.  The respondent made  an application to the Controller for eviction of the  appellant on  the ground that he bona fide required the  premises  for his  occupation.  The respondent resides at No.  17,  Alipur Road, Delhi.  The appellant filed an application before  the Controller  alleging that the accommodation in premises  No. 17,  Alipur  Road  consisted of more than  three  rooms  and consequently,  the respondent did not bona fide require  the premises  in dispute for his own occupation and praying  for the  issue of a commission to go to No. 17, Alipur Road  and to  prepare a plan of the premises.  By his order dated  May 29, 1965 the Controller rejected the application.  He said               "The petitioner came into the witness box  and               the respondent had full opportunity to  cross-               examine   him   regarding   the   extent    of               accommodation  in  his  possession.   He   has               stated  that the other portions of 17,  Alipur               Road,   Delhi  are  in  possession  of   other               persons.  Previously also, such an application               was made by the tenant which was disallowed by               me,  vide  my order dated 7-3-1964. 1  see  no               further reason to review my previous order and               allow this application." From  this order, the appellant filed an appeal to the  Rent Control  Tribunal.   The Tribunal held that no  appeal  lay, from  the aforesaid order of the Controller under s. 38  (1) of  the  Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and on  this  finding dismissed  the  appeal.   The High Court  agreed  with  this decision of the Tribunal.  The appellant now appeals to this Court  by  special leave.  The question in  this  appeal  is whether an appeal lay to the Tribunal under-s.    38(1) from the aforesaid order of the Controller. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 empowers the Controller  to pass orders for fixing the standard rent or lawful  increase thereof, eviction of tenants and various other orders on the applications filed before him by the landlord or the tenant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Under   ss.   36  and  37(2),  the   Controller   may   pass interlocutory orders in a pending proceeding.  Under s.  36, he may pass orders for the summoning of witnesses, the issue of  commissions  for  examination  of  witnesses  discovery, production and inspection of docu- 312 ments  and  inspection  of premises.  By  s.  37(2),  he  is required  to  follow  as  far as may  be  the  practice  and procedure  of  a Court of small causes, and  following  such practice  and  procedure, he may  pass  other  interlocutory orders.   Section  38 gives a right of appeal  to  the  Rent Control  Tribunal  from every order of the  Controller  made under the Act.  The Tribunal has all the powers vested in  a Court  under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when  hearing an  appeal.   Under s. 39 an appeal lies to the  High  Court from  an order of the Tribunal if the appeal  involves  some substantial  questions of law.  By s. 43, save as  expressly provided  in the Act, every order made by the Controller  or an order passed on appeal under the Act is final and  cannot be  called in question in any original suit, application  or execution proceeding.  Section 38(1) reads:               "An  appeal shall lie from every order of  the               Controller  made  under this Act to  the  Rent               Control  Tribunal (hereinafter referred to  as               the Tribunal) consisting of one person only to               be  appointed  by the  Central  Government  by               notification in the Official Gazette." The  object  of s. 38(1) is to give a right of appeal  to  a party  aggrieved  by some order which affects his  right  or liability.   In  the context of s. 38(1), the  words  "every order  of the Controller made under this Act",  though  very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which are  merely procedural  and do not affect the rights or  liabilities  of the  parties.  In a pending proceeding, the  Controller  may pass many interlocutory orders under ss. 36 and 37, such  as orders  regarding  the summoning  of  witnesses,  discovery, production   and  inspection  of  documents,  issue   of   a commission  for  examination  of  witnesses,  inspection  of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility  of a  document  or  the relevancy of  a  question.   All  these interlocutory  orders  are  steps taken  towards  the  final adjudication   and   for  assisting  the  parties   in   the prosecution  of their case in the. pending proceeding;  they regulate  the procedure only and do not affect any right  or liability  of the parties.  The legislature could  not  have intended  that  the parties would be harassed  with  endless expenses  and delay by appeals from such procedural  orders. It  is open to any party to set forth the error,  defect  or irregularity,  if  any,  in such an order  as  a  ground  of objection  in  his appeal from the final order in  the  main proceeding.  Subject to the aforesaid limitation, an  appeal lies to the Rent Control Tribunal from every order passed by the  Controller under the Act.  Even an interlocutory  order passed  under s. 37(2) is an order passed under the Act  and is subject to appeal under s. 38(1) provided it affects some right or liability of any party.  Thus, an order of the Rent Controller refusing to set aside 313 an  ex parte order is subject to appeal to the Rent  Control Tribunal. Similar  considerations  have induced the Courts to  give  a limited  construction on the apparently wide words of  other statutes  conferring rights of appeal.  Section 202  of  the Indian  Companies Act, 1913 confers a right of appeal  "from any  order  or decision made or given in the matter  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

winding  up  of  a  company by  the  Court."  In  Shankarlal Aggarwal  v. Shankarlal Podda,(1), this Court  decided  that these  words, though wide, would exclude  merely  procedural orders  or  those  which  did  not  affect  the  rights   or liabilities of parties. The  order of the Controller dated May 29, 1965 refusing  to issue a commission for inspection and preparation of a  plan of premises No. 17, Alipur Road was a mere procedural  order not affecting any right or liability of the appellant.   The issue  of  a  commission is only a step  for  assisting  the parties in the prosecution of their case.  It is open to the appellant  to canvass the error, defect or irregularity,  if any,  in the order in an appeal from the final order  passed in  the  proceeding for eviction.  But no  appeal  from  the order lay to the Rent Control Tribunal under s. 38(1) The appeal is dismissed with costs. G.C.                                  Appeal dismissed. (1) [1964] 1 S. C.R.717,736. 314