( 1 ). WHETHER the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller or Addl. Rent Controller appointed under Section 35 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115 of the CPC?

( 2 ). Proceedings for eviction of tenant initiated by the landlord under Chapter III of the Act are pending before the Addl. Rent Controller. The revisionist- petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking her impleadment in the proceedings. The application has been rejected. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC

( 3 ). The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision submitting that Addl. Rent Controller is not a `court subordinate to High Court within the meaning of the expression as used in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and therefore the revision does not lie.

( 4 ). Under Section 35 of the Act, the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint as many Controllers and Addl. Controllers as it thinks fit. The prescribed qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Controller or Addl Controller is that he must have held a judicial office in India for at least 5 years or must have practised as an advocate or a pleader in India for at least 7 years.

( 5 ). The impugned order has been passed by Shri J. R. Aryan as Addl. Rent Controller. I have called for copy of the notification of his appointment. Vide notification dated 14th June, 1994, Shri J. R. Aryan and two others were appointed as Addl. Rent Controllers w. e. f. 18th May, 1994 (F/n) by virtue of their being members of the Delhi Judicial Service. It is pertinent to note that the powers of Addl. Rent Controller have not been conferred either on a civil Court or ex- officio. I have been informed that the notifications are invariably made by name and in the event of transfer, promotion or otherwise an incumbent demitting or vacating his office, a fresh appointment in his place is made by name of the successor or anyone else.

( 6 ). In Jagdish Parsad Vs. Hardyal Singh, 1982 RLR 283, it was held that the Controller is not a Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and no revision is maintainable against his order. This view still holds the field.

( 7 ). The scheme of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 shows that an appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act (only on question of law) to the Rent Control Tribunal (vide Section 38 ). Section 43 attaches finality to every order made by the Controller and an order passed on appeal.

( 8 ). In the Central Bank of India Vs. Gokal Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799 their Lordships have held :- @subpara = "the object of Section 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 or