Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, where the respondent landlord sought eviction of the appellant bank, a tenant, on the ground of bona fide personal need. The appellant doubted the genuineness of the need and applied to the Rent Controller for issuance of a commission to inspect the house where the landlord resided. The Controller rejected this prayer, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal held that no appeal lay from such an order under Section 38(1) of the Act and dismissed the appeal. The High Court concurred. The matter reached the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether the Controller's order rejecting the commission was appealable under Section 38(1). The appellant argued that the wide wording 'every order' encompassed all orders, while the respondent contended otherwise. The Court interpreted Section 38(1) purposively, holding that the right of appeal is intended only against orders that affect the rights or liabilities of parties. Interlocutory orders, which merely regulate procedure and assist parties in prosecuting their case pending final adjudication, do not affect rights or liabilities and are thus not appealable. The Court observed that the Legislature could not have intended to subject parties to endless expenses and delay through appeals from procedural steps. The order rejecting the commission was purely procedural and did not determine any right or liability; therefore, no appeal lay. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions below and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Appealability of Orders - Section 38(1) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Interlocutory Order - The words 'every order' in section 38(1) do not include interlocutory orders that are purely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of parties. The Controller rejected a tenant's prayer for a commission to inspect the landlord's residence; held, no appeal lay from such an order as it did not affect any right or liability (Paras 312 E, 312 F-G).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal lies to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against an order of the Controller rejecting a prayer for issue of a commission for local inspection.
Final Decision
Supreme Court held that the order rejecting the commission was an interlocutory procedural order not affecting any right or liability of the parties, hence not appealable under Section 38(1). Appeal dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 38(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act gives right of appeal against orders of Controller that affect rights or liabilities of parties
- not against purely procedural interlocutory orders
- Interlocutory orders are steps towards final adjudication and do not affect rights or liabilities
- Even interlocutory orders may be appealable if they affect rights or liabilities under the Act
