LAKSHMI CYCLE IMPORTING COMPANY Vs. MASOOD ABDUL KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (herein after referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 6-12-1977, of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 26-3-1977 of the Rent Controller. Secunderabad, dismising the petition filed by the petitioner-respondent in RC 26/74, for appointment of a commissioner to inspect the suit premises and the property belonging to the petitioner in the said RC.

(2.) The learned counsel for the resoondent herein Sri Yenkatachar submitted that be took a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against an interlocutory order of the Rent Controller and that the Appellate Court without adjudicating that objection dismissed the appeal on merits. When the appeal itself is not maintainable the question of going into the merits in the appeal or in this revision does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M. Surya Gupta, submitted that this is a revision filed under Section 22 of the Act against the order of the appellate Court and the appeal in the lower Court was maintainable. For the purpose of disposal of this revision petition, it \9 sufficient for the first instance, to find out whether the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, was maintainable. If the order passed by the Rent Controller, affects any right or liability of the parties, that order is appealable under Section 20 of the Act. If, on the other hand, the nature of the order is such that it does not affect the rights or liabilities of any or of the parties, the order is not appealable. In the this case, therefore it is necessary to find out whether the order of the Rent Controller, is of such a nature as to affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. The Supreme Court in Central Bank of India vs. Gokul Chand dealt with an identical question. The tenant in that case wanted a commissioner to be appointed to find out the accommodation available with the landlord and for that purpose to inspect the premises. The Rent Controller rejected the application for appointment of commissioner. Against the said order an appeal was filed. The appellate tribunal, held that DO appeal lies from the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, under Section 38 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and dismissed the appeal. The High Court agreed with the said decision of the appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court, granted special leave. While dealing with that case the Supreme Court observed: 'The object of S. 38 (1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his rights of liability. In the context of S. 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 alTect the rights or liabilities of the parties. In a pending proceedings, the Controller, may pass may interlocutory orders under Sec. 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 dace of hearing and the admissibility of a document or ihe relevancy of a question. All these interlocutory orders arc 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 Supreme Court further observed that even an interlocutory order passed under Section 37 (2) is an order passed under the Act and is subject to appeal under Sec. 38 (1) provided it affects some right or liability of any party. The Supreme Court held that the order on the application for the appointment of the Commissioner for the inspection of the premises does not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties.

(3.) A similar question whether an appeal lies ag inst an interlocutory order under the Act fell for consideration in this court before a Division Bench consisting of Chinnappa Reddy, J. (as he then was) and A.D.V. Reddy J., in Chiganlal (died) Sardarilal vs. N. Pershad. The Division Beach followed the Supreme Court's view in the above case and observed: