SUBHASH CHOPRA Vs. CONTINENTAL DEVICES (INDIA) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord-petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking ejectment of the tenant-respondent under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The grounds of ejectment set up by the landlord-petitioner are that tenant- respondent 1 has raised unauthorised construction in the demised premises and has also demolished the existing/semi-furnished quarters. It has been alleged that on the entire area of the plot including the passage, the unauthorised construction has been raised and that there are material alterations impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. A copy of the ejectment petition has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. There are further allegations of subletting to the effect that tenant-respondent 1 has parted with exclusive possession in favour of sub-tenant-respondents 2 to 4 without the consent of the landlord-petitioner and has also changed the user of the demised premises which was let out for manufacturing of electronic items like transistor and radios. The ground of non-payment of rent has also been pleaded by the landlord-petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, he moved an application before the Rent Controller for appointment of a local commissioner to visit the spot and report regarding existing state of affairs including existing structure, occupation of various persons in the building and nature of business being carried out in the demised premises. The aforementioned application is claimed to have been filed as Local Commissioner was considered necessary and essential; and it was to facilitate the Rent Controller in adjudicating upon the controversy raised. The application was contested by the tenant-respondent and reply dated 17.7.2003 (Annexure P-4) to the application was filed. However, the Rent Controller has dismissed the application by observing as under :-

(2.) MR . Kulbhushan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the appointment of local commissioner is necessary to give a report with regard to the existing construction on the demised premises. He has also pointed out that there is a vital difference between the provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 15(6) of the Act for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on various judgments of this Court in the cases of Hari Chand of Ladwa (Kurukshetra) v. Shanti Devi, 1984 HRR 336; Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal and another, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 710 (P&H) : 2000(2) Civil Court Cases 606 and Hukam Chand v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, 1983 PLR 306.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that ordinarily an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller cannot be subjected to revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(6) of the Act. It may be true that Section 15(6) of the Act is widely worded inasmuch as it confers jurisdiction of this Court to examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under [the] Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to legality or propriety of such order or proceedings. However, it cannot at the same time be construed to mean that all orders including the procedural order which do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties could also be subjected to revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondents has considered the provisions of Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and has opined that no intention could be imputed to the legislature that the parties were to be harassed with endless expenses and delay by appeal/revision from such procedural order. The Supreme Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of Shankarlal Aggarwal v. Shankarlal Poddar, AIR 1965 SC 507 and observed as under :-