The provisions of Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which introduced a summary trial procedure for certain applications for eviction, have an overriding effect over the provisions of section 38 of the Act, which provided for appeal to the Tribunal. Therefore, no appeal lies to the Tribunal against the order of the Additional Controller granting leave to the tenant to contest the application for eviction.

( 1 ) THESE three civil revisions and one second appeal from order raise a common question of law. This judgment will govern them all.

( 2 ) THE facts of these cases are very much similar. Three separate appli- cations were made by three different landlords for the eviction of their tenants. In two cases out of which C. R. 577 of 1977 and C. R. 279 of 1977 have arisen the ground of ejectment was bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (the Act ). In the third case in which SAO 148 of 1977 and CR 730 of 1977 have been filed the landlord was a Government servant and he claimed eviction of his tenant on the ground that he was required to vacate the premises allotted to him by the Central Government and therefore a right had aiccrued to him to recover immediately possession of the premises let out by him to the tenant.

( 3 ) THE three applications were tried by the Additional Rent Controller under s. 25b of the Act. In each case the tenant filed an affidavit staling the grounds on which he sought to contest the eviction claim. The landlord opposed the tenant s prayer for leave. Rejecting the landlord s opposition the Additional Controller granted leave to the tenants to contest the applications.

( 4 ) DISSATISFIED with the order granting leave to the tenants the landlords went in-appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal under s. 38 of the Act. The landlords succeeded before the Tribunal in all the three cases. The tribunal allowed the appeal, dismissed the tenants applications for leave holding that the tenatats affidavits did not disclose any such fact as would disentitle the landlords from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s. 14 in two cases and under s. 14a in the third one. The eviction petitions were remitted to the Additional Controller. He passed orders of eviction in, all the three cases under sub-section (4) of s. 25b of the Act as nothing else now remained to be done.

( 5 ) THE tenants have come in revision to this court, challenging the validity of the eviction orders on the sole ground that the appeal to the Tribunal was not competent and it had no power to rescind the leave which had been granted by the Additional Controller. The central question in these cases is : Did an appeal lie to the Tribunal against the order of the Additional Controller granting leave to the tenant to contest the application for eviction ? If no appeal lies the order of eviction cannot stand. It will fall with the order of the Tribu- nal. This raises the question of the true construction of section 25b which in fact is at the heart of these cases.

( 6 ) SECTIONS 14a, 25a, 25b and 25c were introduced in the Act by Ordinance 24 of 1975 which came into force on 1st December, 1975. The Ordinance was later replaced by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act (18 of 76) which was given effect to from the date of the ordinance. Section 25a, 25b and 25c are contained in a newly introduced Chapter IIIA entitled as summary trial of certain appli- cations . By section 25b every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on thegrobnd specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s. 14, or under s. 14a, has to be tried in accordance with the procedure specified in this section.

( 7 ) SECTION 25a which is the first of the fasciculus of sections ap- pearing in Chapter IIIA provides that the provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for, the time being in force. The marginal note to s. 25a reads "provisions of this Chapter to have over-riding effect". Section 25a in the