A procedural order declining to treat a maintainability objection as a preliminary issue in summary proceedings is interlocutory and generally non-appealable, as it does not determine substantive rights. Such discretion rests with the trial authority to ensure expeditious disposition without causing irremediable prejudice to the parties.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present petition has been instituted assailing the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the Rent Authority, Agra in Case No. 475 of 2023 ( Sudeep Kumar Jain vs. Smt. Asha Devi and another ), as also the subsequent order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the Rent Tribunal in Case No. Nil of 2026, arising out of proceedings under Section 10 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 instituted by the respondent-landlord.

3. It appears from the record that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the tenant-petitioner moved an application on 19.11.2025 raising certain objections touching the maintainability of the case and prayed that the same be adjudicated as a preliminary issue before the matter proceeded further.

4. The Rent Authority, Agra, upon consideration of the said request, noticed that similar objections regarding maintainability had also been raised earlier by the tenant. It further took note of the fact that the proceedings had remained pending since 17.02.2023 and the matter had already reached the stage of hearing. In that backdrop, the authority found no justifiable reason to segregate the objections for separate adjudication as a preliminary issue and directed that the case be fixed for final hearing, where all questions raised by the parties would be considered together.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Rent Tribunal, by the order impugned dated 22.04.2026, held that the order passed by the Rent Authority was purely interlocutory in nature, did not finally determine any right of the parties, and therefore was not amenable to appellate challenge.

6. The appeal was consequently dismissed at the admission stage.

7. The view taken by the Tribunal accords with settled principles. It is well settled that every procedural order passed during the pendency of proceedings does not attain the character of an appealable adjudication. An order merely declining to frame or decide an objection of maintainability as a preliminary issue, while keeping such objection open for consideration at the stage of final disposal, neither determines the substantive rights of the parties nor finally adjudicates any jurisdictional plea. It is, in essence, a matter concerning the mode and sequence of trial. In summary rent proceedings, where expeditious adjudication is the governing legislative object, the authority is vested with discretion to decide whether a particular objection ought to be tried separately or along with the merits. Refusal to postpone the main proceedings for separate determination of such objection, especially where the matter is ripe for final hearing, remains interlocutory in character and does not give rise to an independent statutory appeal unless the statute expressly provides otherwise. The aggrieved party suffers no irremediable prejudice, for the objection survives for consideration in the final decision and may thereafter be urged, if necessary, in challenge to the ultimate order.

8. Merely because a party raises an objection touching maintainability does not confer an indefeasible right to insist that such objection be tried as a preliminary issue in isolation. Unless the issue is one which can be decided purely on admitted facts and is capable of terminating the proceedings at the threshold, the forum is competent to defer its consideration and examine the same together with the remaining issues at the final stage, particularly where segregation of issues is likely to delay disposal of summary proceedings.

9. No prejudice is caused to th