LAJJA RAM Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Kaithal, dated October 16, 1982, declining to examine the witnesses of the respondent present in court because no list of the witnesses had been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition against the impugned order would not be competent as the appeal against the same could be filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Rent of Control and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In support of his contention he has relied on three decisions of this Court in Civil Revision No. 2909 of 1981 (Girdhari Lal v. Smt. Rattan Mal Jain) decided on February 25, 1982, Janardahn and others v. Gian Chand and others,1982 1 RLR 410 and The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. Om Parkash, 1981 2 RCR(Rent) 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relying on the The Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand, 1967 AIR(SC) 799 urged that under Section 15 only such orders would be appealable which affected the rights and liabilities of the parties and not the one which are merely procedural relating to the summoning of witnesses, production, inspection of documents etc. Before the Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act are under consideration which are pari materia with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. This decision was not noticed in either of the three cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. That apart, in case before me and I.S. Tiwana, J., the order passed substantially affected the rights of the parties. In Girdhari Lal's case by the impugned order, the Rent Controller had refused the ex parte order and in Delhi Cloth and General Mill's case the plea that the petition was barred by virtue of Section 14 of the Act had been rejected. These case, therefore, do not help the respondent. In Janardhan's case by the impugned order, the prayer for amendment of the petition had been disallowed and it was thus a procedural order. This decision, therefore, fully supports the contention of the respondent. I would have referred the matter to a larger Bench but for the decision of the Supreme Court in the Central Bank of India's case as it has been authoritatively pronounced in that case that appeals could be competent only against orders which affected the rights and liabilities of the parties and not against order interlocutory orders relating to procedural matters, it has to be held that no appeal against the impugned order would be competent. The preliminary objection raised is accordingly over-ruled.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller denied the petitioner the right to examine witnesses present in Court because no list of witnesses had been filed. There is no provision under the Act which requires the filing of such list and it appears that the Rent Controller passed the order in view of the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rev. No. 1463 of 1978 (Ram Dass v. Smt. Sukhdev Kaur) decided on April 7, 1981, ruled that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to the proceedings before the Rent Controller and he has to evolve his own procedure in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The provisions of Order 16, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code which are penal in nature, therefore, could not be resorted to for denying the right to the respondent to examine witnesses present before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller, thus acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction and the impugned order is accordingly set aside. The parties, through their counsel, have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on February 8, 1983. No costs.