SANYUKTA UPPAL Vs. VIDYA PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Sanyukta Uppal, appellant, is the landlady while Shri Vidya Parkash, respondent is the tenant. An application under clauses (e), (j) and (k) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Kent Control Act. 1958, herein nailed "the Act', was filed by the appellant for the respondent's eviction.

(2.) On June 4, 1965 when the respondent tenant was not present and had not been served with a notice of that date, an order was passed un.der Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, striking out his defence on the pica that he had failed to comply with an order for discovery of documents. The main case already stood adjourned to September 35, 1965, for the appellant's evidence. All the same ex parle evidence was recorded on June 5, 1965 ; and on June 7, 1965 an eviction order was passed against the respocdent-tenant Ealecution was taken out and on June 15,1965 when the Courts were closed for summer vacation, attempt was made to execute the said order, but without success. The Courts reopened on July 15, 1965 after the vacation. On August 6,1965, after obtaining necessary certified copies, an 'appeal was filed before the hent Control- Tribunal from the Additional Controller's "order dated 7th June, 1965 which was based on order dated 4th June, 1&6S. This joint appeal was allowed and setting aside the two impugned orders, the case was remanded to the Additional Controller for decision according to law. In the present appeal, objection has been raised that although the appeal against the eviction order dated June 7, 1965 is within time, the appeal against the order dated June 4 1965 was beyond limitation. The Tribunal. erred; the appellant's learned counsel contended, in allowing it.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent contended at the outset that the order dated June 4, 1905 striking out the respondent's defence was not an order under section 15 or any other provision of the Act, but was an order in consequence of an application said to be for discovery of documents, which infact was not even for that purpose. It was, therefore, a purely procedural order and not appealable. It could be challenged in appeal against the final eviction order The question of limitation, therefore, does not arise, as no appeal is required to be filed against such an order. The appellant's objection, therefore, said the counsel, was of no consequence.