( 1 ) THE reference to a Division Bench has been made by a learned Single Judge of this court noticing conflict in the decisions of the Supreme Court in D. N. Sood Vs. Shanti Devi, 1997 (10) SCC 428 and Vinod Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Smt. Narain Devi, AIR 1980 SC 2012.

( 2 ) THE petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners herein questioning the order dated 17. 3. 2001 passed by the second respondent whereby and whereunder an application of the first respondent herein seeking leave to defend was allowed.

( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge a question arose as to whether an application under article 226 would be maintainable.

( 4 ) LEARNED Single Judge noticed that a Division Bench comprising of two Hon ble Judges of the Supreme Court in D. N. Sood s case (supra) considered the question as to whether a revision petition would lie against an order granting leave under Section 25b of the Delhi rent Control Act.

( 5 ) A learned Single Judge of this Court in a similar situation entertained the revision petition where against the Supreme Court was moved. The Apex Court held :

"this appeal arises out of a petition filed by the respondent (landlord) for the eviction of the appellant ( tenant) under the provisions of Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 ( hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ). In the said proceedings the appellant has been granted leave to defend by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi by order dated 22. 9. 1992. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the Addl Rent controller, the respondent filed a revision petition in the Delhi High Court under section 25 (B) (8) of the Act. The appellant raised an objection about the maintainability of the said revision petition and placed reliance on the earlier judgments of the High court holding that an order granting leave to defend is interlocutory in nature and a revision does not lie against the said order. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge of the High Court has disagreed with the said view in the earlier judgments of the Court and has hold that a revision lies under Section 25 (B) (8) of the act against an order granting Ieave to defend. The learned Judge has differed from the earlier judgments of the High Court on the ground that at the time the said judgments were delivered the provisions of Section 14-B, 14-C and 14-H were not there and they were introduced by the Amendment Act of 1988 and that in view of the changed scenario it must be held that a revision to the High Court will lie against an order of the Rent Controller granting leave to defend. We are unable to endorse this approach of the learned Judge in departing from the law laid in the earlier decisions of the High Court holding that an order granting leave to defend is an interlocutory order against which a revision does not lie. If the learned judge was not inclined to agree with the said view, on the basis of the amendments introduced in the Act by the Amendment Act of 1988, the proper course for him was to refer the matter to be considered by a larger Bench. Sitting singly the learned judge could not disagree with the view expressed earlier by other coordinate benches of the High Court. Till the view taken in the earlier decision was reversed by a larger Bench the learned Judge was bound by it. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High court taking the view that the revision filed by the respondent was maintainable and on the basis of the law as laid down in the earlier decisions of the High Court which has not been overruled, it must be held that the revision filed by the respondent was not maintainable"

( 6 ) BEFORE the Apex Court in D. N. Sood s ( case), however, a judgment of Full Bench comprising of three judges of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar s case (supra) had not been brought to it.

( 7 ) IN the aforementioned situation, the reference has been made. In terms of Article 141 of the Constitution