BALWANT SINGH Vs. SANT RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole point in this appeal is whether the order made by the Rent Controller deciding a preliminary issue whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties was appealable.

(2.) THE tenant had filed an application for fixation of standard rent regarding a portion of House No. 5969 in Karol Bagh, Delhi. The landlord contested the application on the ground that the relationship between the parties was one of licensee and licensor and not of tenant and landlord. The Rent Controller by and order dated 7th December, 1959, held that the relationship of the nature asserted by the tenant existed between the parties and therefore, it was directed that evidence be produced in the matter of fixation of standard rent. The landlord filed an appeal and in a fairly lengthy order the Rent Control Tribunal held that the order made by the Rent Controller was not final and was not appealable under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) SECTION 36 deals with the powers of the Controller and Section 37 with the procedure to be followed by him. According to sub -section (2) of Section 37, the Controller while holding an enquiry must follow as far as may be the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes. Section 43 makes the order of the Controller or the order passed on appeal final. The expressions "landlord" and "tenant" are defined by clauses (e) and (1) of Section 2 of the Act. The contention of Mr. Safeer is that the decision given by the Rent Controller with regard to relationship between the parties has to be given with reference to the definition contained in Section 2 and since the Controller has the jurisdiction to make such an order it must be deemed to be an order made under the Act and as it finally and conclusively determines the question of relationship, the order must be deemed to be final with the result that it would be appealable under Section 38(1). In South Asia. Industries Private Limited v. S.B. Sarup Singh and Ors., 1962 P.L.R. 65. Gosain J. had an occasion to interpret the meaning of words made under this Act is Section 38(1). It was pointed out by him that the orders which are made by the Rent Controller may be in. the nature of interim orders or final orders All those orders when made must be deemed to have been made under the Act and must therefore be appealable. But these words refer to the express provisions of the Act and not to the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case which was decided by him, an order by which the name of the tenant had been struck off the records was held not to be covered by Section 38(1) at it was not an order made under the Act. In Messrs Lachhman Das Moti Ram v. Shori Lal, 1960 P.L.R. 254, in the proceedings before the Rent Controller for fixation of standard rent a preliminary issue had been framed and decided on the question of limitation. It was held that such an order could not be regarded as an order under the Act and was not appealable as such. In Niadre v. Nanneh , I.L.R. 1960 (2) P&H 76 :, P.L.R. 451, I held that an order allowing substitution of legal representatives was not an appealable order. The basis of all these decisions is that in order to be appealable the order must have been made under the provisions of the Act.