CHAGANLAL DIED SARDARILAL Vs. NARASING PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revision petitions arise out of an application for eviction under Rent Control Act. C.R P. 975/69 is against an order of the appellate authority holding that the document which is relied on by the landholder and described as a rental deed is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration The Rent Controller held that the said document is admissible and an appeal was preferred to the appellate authority against the order holding the document to be admissible.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Sarathy for the petitioner that no appeal lay to the appellate authority against the order holding that the document was admissible in evidence. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v Gokal Chand dealing with Section 38 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act LIX of 1958 which is in the following terms : "An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act to the Rent Control Tribunal........" It was observed 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 and 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 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 parties would be harassed with endless expenses and delay by appeals from such procedural orders. It is open to any party to set forth the error, defect or irregularity, if any in such an order as a ground of objection in his appeal from the final order in the main proceedings.

(3.) Subject to the aforesaid limitation, an appeal lies to the Rent Control Tribunal from every order passed by the Controller under the Act. Even an interlocutory order passed under Section 37 (2) is an order passed under the Act and is subject to appeal under Section 38 (i) provided it affects some right or liability of any party. Thus, an order of the Rent Controller refusing to set aside an exparte order is subject to appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal.