$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18.11.2024 + RC.REV. 344/2016 & CM Appls.24801/2016, 20198/2020, 53661/2023 VIJAY KUMAR SETIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Aggarwal and Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advs.

versus CAPT PREETINDER SINGH THAPAR & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Ms. Yuganshi Singh and Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner impugning the order dated 21.04.2016 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed with respect to the premises comprising of two rooms converted into one room measuring 20’-0” X 20’-0” at A-78, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as shown in red color in the site plan attached with the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”].

2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Respondents raises the issue of maintainability of the present Petition. It is contended that the orders of this nature are appealable orders under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”].

2.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondents seeks to rely upon the judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 344/2016 Page 1 of 5 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Inder Mohan Sachdeva v. Usha International Ltd., [2012 SCC OnLine Del 1954] to submit that all orders affecting the rights and liabilities of the parties are appealable under the provisions of Section 38(1) of the DRC Act and the Court has held that in view of the alternate remedy available, the Petition is not maintainable.

3. The issue of maintainability was also raised before the Coordinate Bench of this Court as is recorded in the order dated 27.02.2024.

4. Section 38 of the DRC Act provides for the provision of Appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal from every order of the Controller that involves question of law. Section 38 of the DRC Act is reproduced below: “(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act to the Rent 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:

[Provided that no appeal shall lie from an order of the Controller made under section 21.]…”

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand, [1996 SCC OnLine SC 244] has held that Section 38 of the DRC Act gives a right of Appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal against every order of the Rent Controller made under the DRC Act in the following terms:

3. The object of Section 38(1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. In the context of Section 38(1), the words “every order of the Controller made under this Act”, though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. In a pending proceeding, the Controller may pass many interlocutory orders under Sections 36 and 37, such as orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document or the relevancy of a question. All these interlocutory orders are steps taken towards the final Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed RC.REV. 344/2016 Page 2 of 5

adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceeding; they regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties. The legislature could not have intended that the