An order rejecting an application for abatement of a suit is not an order against which an appeal can be filed under S. 34 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - DELHI AND AJMER RENT CONTROL ACT, 1952 (38 OF 1952) - S. 33, 34, 57 - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 (59 OF 1958) - S. 38, 50 - APPEAL - ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT OF SUIT - WHETHER APPEALABLE - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:

A suit for ejectment on the ground of failing to pay arrears of rent was instituted against the appellant under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (No. 38 of 1952). During the pendency of the suit, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (No. 59 of 1958) came into force. The appellant filed an application before the trial Court requesting it to hold that the suit had abated on the ground that the suit related to premises the construction of which had been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955. The trial Court rejected the application and held that the suit was to proceed on merits. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Court which dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-maintainability. The revision filed by the appellant before the Circuit Bench of the High Court of Punjab at Delhi failed.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the order rejecting the application for abatement of the suit was not an order against which an appeal could be filed under S. 34 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The Court held that the word "order" used in S. 34 is not wide enough to include every order, whatever be its nature, and particularly orders which only dispose of interlocutory matters. The Court further held that the appellant could challenge the correctness of the decision of the trial Court in the appeal against the decree, if passed against him.
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the application for abatement of the suit was an order against which an appeal could be filed under S. 34 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the word "order" used in S. 34 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 is not wide enough to include every order, whatever be its nature, and particularly orders which only dispose of interlocutory matters. The Court further held that the appellant could challenge the correctness of the decision of the trial Court in the appeal against the decree, if passed against him.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgement

BHARGAVA, J. : A suit for ejectment on the ground of failing to pay arrears of rent was instituted against the appellant, Bant Singh Gill, by the respondents under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (No. 38 of 1952) - hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1952", on the 27th February, 1958. On 9th February, 1959, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (No. 59 of 1958) - hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1952", came into force and became applicable to the premises which were the subject-matter of the pending suit. On 13th March, 1961, the appellant relying on the provisions of S. 50 (2) of the Act of 1958, filed an application before the trial Court requesting it to hold that the suit had abated on the ground that the suit related to premises the construction of which had been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955. The trial Court, after taking into account the evidence, recorded a finding that the appellant had failed to prove that the premises had been completed during this period mentioned in S. 50 (2) of the Act of 1958, and, consequently, rejected the application and held that the suit was to proceed on merits. Against that order, the appellant filed an appeal before the District Court which was heard by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge exercising enhanced appellate powers in Delhi. The appeal purported to be under S. 34 of the Act of 1952. The appellate Court held that the order passed by the trial Court was not an order under the Act of 1952, but an order under the Act of 1958 so that no appeal lay, and dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-maintainability. The revision filed by the appellant before the Circuit Bench of the High Court of Punjab at :Delhi failed, and the appellant has now come up to this Court by special leave in this appeal.

2. It appears to us that both the first appellate Court and the High Court committed, an error in holding that no appellant as a result of their failure to notice the provisions of S. 57 of the Act of 1958. The suit, as originally instituted was clearly a case under S. 33 of the Act of 1952 which is as follows :

"33. (1) Any civil Court in the State of Delhi or Ajmer which has jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit for recovery of possession of any premises shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide any case under this Act relating to such premises if it has pecuniary jurisdiction and is otherwise competent to hear and decide such a case under any law for the time being in force.

(2) Act, for the purposes of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, shall be determined by the amount of rent which is or would be payable for a period of twelve months, calculated according to the highest amount claimed in the case :

Provided that in the case of any proceeding based on the certificate of the Controller under Section 28, such value shall be determined by the amount of rent which is or would be payable for a period of one month.

(3) If any question arises whether any suit, application or other proceeding is a case under this Act, the question shall be determined by the Court.

(4) For the purposes of this Chapter, a case under this Act, includes any suit, application or other proceeding under this Act and also includes any claim or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions, but does not include any proceeding which a Controller is empowered to decide under Chapter IV."

Section 34 of that Act, which confers the right of appeal to an aggrieved person against any decree or order of a Court under that Act, runs as follows :-

"34 (1) Any person aggrieved by any decree or order of a court passed under this Act may, in such manner as may be prescribed. prefer an appeal-

(a) to the court of the senior subordinate judge, if any, where the value of the case does not exceed two thousand rupees :

Provided that where there is no senior subordinate judge, the appeal shall lie to the district judge;

(b) to the court of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document