GOPAL SINGH Vs. SHEILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM(M) 711/2001 is directed against the Judgment dated 9th November, 2001, of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in RCA No. 694/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein on the ground that order of the Rent Controller on an application under Section 144 CPC is not appealable under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

(2.) The facts of the case are that by a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act the landlord had sought eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. In reply thereto, the tenant had contested the ownership as also the rate of rent. The tenant contended that it was Rs.300/- per month while the landlord contended that it was Rs.500/-. The court while adjudicating under Section 15(1), as an interim measure, directed the tenant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.550/- per month, which the tenant did. During the proceedings, the Controller held that the landlord was not able to prove rate of rent at Rs.550/- per month and dismissed the petition. An appeal was filed against this order, which was subsequently withdrawn since payment continued to be made at the rate of Rs.550/- per month by the tenant. The tenant thereafter moved an application under Section 144 CPC before the Additional Rent Controller to the effect that since the Controller had dismissed the petition of the landlord and had returned a finding that the landlord has not been able to prove the rate of rent at Rs.550/- per month, he be refunded the excess amount paid by him. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller and taken up in appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 144 CPC, it is a duty of the court to ensure that the parties are restored to their original positions when final order or decree has been passed. It is needless to say that the Controller has the authority to do so since money has been deposited in the court at the instance of the Controller