The principle embodied in Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to challenge an interlocutory order in an appeal from a final decree or order, is applicable to proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 1 ) THIS judgment would dispose of S. A. O. No. 280 and S. A. O. 354 of 1972, both of which assail a common order of the Rent Control Tribunal setting aside the order of eviction made by the Controller and remanding the case back to the Controller for decision in accordance with law. The only question posed for decision is as to whether an order made by the Controller under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short, the Act), gets total immunity from legal challenge in case no appeal against it is filed.

( 2 ) THIS is how the question has arisen. In the course of proceedings for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent in spite of service of notice of demand, the Controller made an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act in spite of a plea of the tenant denying the validity of the notice and disputing the quantum of liability. The tenant admittedly made default in compliance of the order in that the deposit was made after the expiry of the period within which the deposit was to be made in terms of the order. The plea of the tenant for condonation of delay was turned down and by the same order, the Controller directed the eviction of the tenant without going into the question as to the validity of the notice of demand and the alleged failure to comply with the terms of the notice. In the appeal against the order of eviction before the Rent Control Tribunal, the tenant sought to challenge the validity of the order made under section 15 (1) of the Act, but was not allowed to assail it on the ground that the tenant had failed to file an appeal against the order, and that the order having thus become "final" could not be made a ground of attack in the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal, however, sustained the other plea of the tenant that an order of eviction could not be passed under section 14 (l) (a) of the Act unless the landlords established that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent within the requisite period of service of the notice of demand in view of the dispute raised by the tenant with regard to the notice etc. and it was, therefore, held that the order of eviction could not be made without recording evidence. Liberty was, however, reserved for the landlords to invoke Section 15 (7) of the Act in the proceedings before the Controller. The order of eviction was accordingly set aside and the case was remanded to the Controller for decision according to law. The landlords and the tenant are both aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Tribunal. S. A. O. 280/72 is the tenant s Second Appeal while S. A. O. 354/72 is that of the landlords.

( 3 ) WHEN the appeals came up for final hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, the contention of the tenant with regard to his right to assail the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was reiterated in S. A. O. 280 of 1972, it was noticed that although the rival contention was reinforced by a decision of the Punjab High Court and following that a number of decisions of this Court, the correctness of the view taken in the decisions had been doubted by one of us, Anand J" in the case of Parbhati v. Budho Devi etc. (1) and that it would, therefore, be proper that the matter was referred to a larger Bench. This is how both the appeals were placed before us for decision.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the tenant, it was urged that an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act was in the nature of an interlocutory order; that the tenant was not bound to challenge the order in an appeal against it ; and that by virtue of the provisions of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, in any event, the principle embodied in it, the tenant was entitled to assail the validity of such an order in an appeal against the final order of eviction, and that the Rent Control Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding to the contrary even though on the basis of a number of decisions of th