Back
High Court Of Delhi
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
GOKAL CHAND - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 182-D of 1965
Decided On : 02/08/1966
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 38 - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION - APPEALABILITY OF ORDERS - ORDERS AFFECTING RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES OF PARTIES - PROCEDURAL ORDERS - ORDERS NOT AFFECTING RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES OF PARTIES - CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES CONFERRING RIGHT OF APPEAL - LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION - RIGHT OF APPEAL AS VALUABLE RIGHT - DOUBTS RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF APPEAL - INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE INTO DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 37 (2) - ORDERS MADE UNDER INCORPORATED PROVISIONS - APPEALABILITY - ORDERS FINALLY DECIDING DISPUTE OR DEPRIVING PARTY OF SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT - EXCLUSION OF MERE PROCEDURAL ORDERS OR ORDERS NOT AFFECTING RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES OF PARTIES - REVIEW OF ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE COMMISSION - ORDER RELATING TO MODE OF PROOF OF FACT - PROCEDURAL ORDER NOT AFFECTING RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES OF APPELLANT - NOT APPEALABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant under the respondent, filed two miscellaneous applications in an ejectment proceeding. One application sought the appointment of a commissioner to prepare a plan of the landlord's premises to determine the landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use. The other application sought the appointment of a commissioner to prepare a plan of the entire house occupied by the landlord to determine the extent of accommodation available to the landlord. The Rent Controller rejected both applications. The appellant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal, which held that the Rent Controller's order was not appealable. The appellant then appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the order of the Rent Controller declining to issue a commission to prepare a plan of the landlord's premises was not an appealable order. The Court held that not every order made by the Rent Controller is appealable under section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Only orders that finally decide a dispute between the parties or deprive a party of a substantial and important right are appealable. Orders that are merely procedural or do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties are not appealable. The Court further held that the order in question was a procedural order that did not affect the rights or liabilities of the appellant and was, therefore, not appealable.
Issues: 1. Whether every order made by the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is appealable under section 38 of the Act? 2. Whether an order declining to issue a commission to prepare a plan of the landlord's premises is an appealable order under section 38 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right of appeal is a valuable right and should be given a liberal construction. 2. Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, confers a wide right of appeal against orders made by the Rent Controller. 3. However, not every order made by the Rent Controller is appealable. Only orders that finally decide a dispute between the parties or deprive a party of a substantial and important right are appealable. 4. Orders that are merely procedural or do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties are not appealable. 5. The order in question declining to issue a commission to prepare a plan of the landlord's premises was a procedural order that did not affect the rights or liabilities of the appellant and was, therefore, not appealable.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE appellant in this Court, the Central Bank of India Limited, is a tenant under Gokal Chand Respondent 1n the premises in dispute. The landlord made an application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. Two miscellaneous applications were made by the tenant, the particulars whereof have been set out in t",e order of ths Rent Controller Delhi. In the first application, it was said that Partap Chand, whose requirement of the premises in occupation of the landlord had been made a ground for ejectment, had ample accommodation at 51 Rajpur Road, Delhi and therefore it was necessary to appoint a Commissioner to prepare a plan of the house. In the second application, the tenant claimed that t accmmodation in the whole of the house situated at 17, Alipur Road, Delhi, where the landlord resides is more than three rooms as claimed by the landlord and, consequently the landlord is not justified in saying that he bona fide requires premises in dispute for his residence. By this application, it was prayed that,-"it is therefore, in the interest of justice most humbly prayed that a commission be appointed preferably a draughtsman or an engineer to go to 17, Alipur Road, Delhi, and to prepare and file a detailed plan of this premises. " The prayer in the other application, mentioned above, was,-"it is, therefore, prayed that a commission- a draughtsman or an engineer-be appointed at the expense of the respondent to prepare and file a detailed plan of the building 51. Rajpur Road, Delhi. " With respect to the application regarding 51, Rajpur Road, the Rent Controller decided that preparation of plan was not necessary in the circumstances of the case and could not, in any case, be allowed after the parties had closed their evidence and the case had been pending for a long time. Regarding the other application, the Rent Controller said:-"it is contended on behalf of the tenant that the accommodation in the whole of the house at 17, Alipur Road, Delhi, is much more than three rooms and a local commissioner may be appointed to prepare a plan of the whole of the house. The petitioner came into the witness. box and the respondent had full opportunity to cross-examine him regarding the extent of accommodation in his prossession. He has stated that the other portions of 17, Alipur Road, Delhi, are in possession of other persons. Previously also such an application was made by the tenant which was disallowed by me vide my order dated 7. 3. 1954. I see no further reason to review my previous order and allow this application. " Aggrieved by this decision, the tenant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal, The Tribunal, following the dscision of this Court in South Asia Industries Private Limited v. S B. Sarup Singh\ held that the order of the Rent Controller was not an order made under the Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) and, therefore, not appealable.
( 2 ) THE matter came up before me for hearing and I felt that there was some conflict between the decisions of D. K. Mahajan, J. in Pokar Mal v. Prem Nath and others," and H. R. Khanna, J. in Overseas Corporation Private Limited v. Faqir Chand",s. A. 0. 20 I d of 1963 decided on 18th May, 1964. Inview of this conflict, the matter was REFERRED TO a larger B. ;nch and this is how the appeal has come up before us for decision.
( 3 ) THE main point arising for decision in this case is the ambit and scope of section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which reads as under-
"38. (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of Controller made under this Act to the Kent Control Tribunal (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Tribunal) consisting of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the order made by the Controller : Provided that the Tribunal may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
