( 1 ) THIS revision raises the question whether an order passed by the Controller under subsection (4) of section 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, granting leave to the tenant to contest the application for eviction is subject to a revision by this Court under the proviso to sub-section (8) thereof. In a decision of this Court reported in Devi Singh v Chaman Lal. 1977 Raj. L R. 566, it was held that subsection (8) and its proviso read together prohibit appeal or second appeal against an order of the recovery of possession, but permit a revision only against such order and no other. The same view was endorsed by this Court in Bhagwati Parshad v. Om Parkash 1979. Raj. L. R. 26.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tae view taken in these decisions deserved to be reconsidered by a larger bench. T he proviso to sub-section (8) of section 25 B provides that the High Court may for the purpose of satisfying itself whether an order made by the Controller under this section" is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it think fit. It is contended that the proviso does not say "an order for the recov