Central Bank Of India VS. Shri Gokal Chand

Summary

---

The respondent who owned a building in which the appellant was tent filed an application under the Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) to the Controller for the eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground of his own need.

The appellant contended that the respondent did not bona fide need the premises for his own use and prayed for a commission to be issued for the purpose of inspecting the house in which the respondent was residing. The Controller rejected the appellant's prayer. The appellant thereupon appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal held that no appeal lay from the aforesaid order under s. 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and on that finding dismissed the appeal. The High Court agreed into this decision of the Tribunal. The appellant came to this Court by special leave.

HELD : The object of s. 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 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 affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. [312 E]

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.

[312 F-G]

However, even an interlocutory order passed under s. 37(2) is an order passed under the Act and is subject to appeal under s. 383(1) pro. vided it affects some right or liability of any party. Thus an order of the Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order is subject to appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. [312 H]

Shankarlal Aggarwal v. Shankarlal Poddar. [1964] 1 S.C.R.

717, relied on.

In the present case, the interlocutory order of the Controller refusing to issue a commission wag only a procedural one and therefore no appeal lay to the Tribunal under s. 38(1). [313 C-D]

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Central Bank Of India VS. Shri Gokal Chand

PETITIONER: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI GOKAL CHAND

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/1966

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S.

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S.

WANCHOO, K.N.

SHAH, J.C.

CITATION: 1967 AIR 799 1967 SCR (1) 310

CITATOR INFO : R 1967 SC1360 (3)

D 1977 SC 403 (9)

RF 1977 SC2185 (7)

R 1980 SC 962 (95)

ACT: Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59 of 1958) s. 38(1)-App...

See the full content of this document

---