VED PARKASH KAPUR Vs. HARISH CHANDER RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an order made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and confirmed on appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, in an application under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, filed by Shri Harish Chander against the firm J. N. Mehra and Brothers for their eviction from certain office premises in Mangal Market, Joghian Colony, Delhi on grounds of non-payment of rent, unauthorised subletting and substantial damage to the property. J. N. Mehra and Brothers were sued through Shri J. N Mehra on the allegation that he was the sole proprietor of the firm J. N. Mehra and Brothers and was thus the only tenant of the premises. The tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent in accordance with the order passed under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. As a result, his defence against ejectment was struck out. The appeal filed by the tenant against the order was also dismissed by the Tribunal. During the pendency of the application for eviction before the Rent Controller, the present petitioner Ved Parkash had filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 C. P. C. read with section 151 C. P. C. alleging that he too was in occupation of these premises with the consent of the landlord and was, therefore, a necessary party to the proceedings. This application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi which too was dismissed on the ground that an order refusing to implead the appellant as a party to the ejectment application and dismissing his application under Order 1 rule 10 C P. C. is not an order under the Delhi Rent Control Act and, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of section 38 of the said Act. The appeal was, therefore, held to be incompetent.

(2.) The petitioner has now come to this Court in revision against that order. A preliminary objection to the competency of the revision petition has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord on two grounds. It is contended in the first place, that the Rent Controller appointed under the Delhi Rent Control Act is not a Court subordinate to the High Court, and, therefore, no revision lies to the High Court against his orders. Reliance is placed in support of this argument on a Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Pitman's Shorthand Accadamy v. B. Lila Ram & Sons and others. Secondly, it is contended that an order rejecting an application for being impleaded as a party to the eviction petition is an order under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and is, therefore, appealable. The remedy of the petitioner, if at all, lies in filing a second appeal in this Court and since an appeal under sub-section (2) of section 39 can lie only if it involves a substantial question of law, the present petition cannot be treated as a second appeal under the Act. I shall first deal with the secound ground of attack which runs counter to the argument that appears to have been urged on behalf of the respondent before the Rent Control Tribunal and which indeed forms the basis of the appellate order now sought to be revised by the petitioner. The Tribunal held that an order passed under Order 1 rule 10 C P. C. cannot be held to be an order under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and, therefore, such an order does not fall within the ambit of section 38 and no appeal is competent. The position taken by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord before me, however, is that an appeal was competent before the Tribunal and, therefore, no revision petition could be filed in this Court because section 39 provides for a second appeal.

(3.) The question as to the kind of orders which can be treated as orders under the Act within the meaning of section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in the Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand. After an exhaustive survey of the various authorities having a bearing on the question, Kapur, J. observed as under :-