CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus SHRJ GOKAL CHAND

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 12-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

310 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
SHRJ GOKAL CHAND 
September 12, 1966 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59 of 1958) s. 
38(1)-Appeol from 
jnt.erlocutory order of Conti'ol/er whether lies to TrlbulllJ/. 
The respondent who owned a building in which the appellant was 
tenant filed an application under the Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) 
to the Controller for the eviction of the api>!lllant from the premises on 
the ground of his own need. The appellant conlended that the respondent 
<lid not bona fide need the premises for his own use and prayed for a 
commission to be issued for the purpose of inspecting the houoe in which 
the respondent was residing. The Controller rejected the appellant's prayer. 
The appellant thereupon appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tri-
bunal 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 
eame to this Court by special leave. 
HELD : The object of s. 38 (I) is to give a right of appeal to a pany 
aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. 
Jo the con-
text of s. 38( I), the words "every order of the Controller made under 
this Act", though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which 
arc 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 
-0rder passed under the Act and is subject to appeal under s. 3 8 (I) 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 HJ 
ShaJtkarla/ AgglD'Wa/ v. Shankar/al Poddar. 
(1964) 1 S.C.R. 
717, 
relied on. 
In the present ea•e, the interlocutory order of the Controller refusing 
tD issue a commission was: only a procedural one, and therefore no appeal 
Jay to the Tribunal under s. 38( I). [313 C-DJ 
CtVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1339 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 8, 1966 of the Punjab High Court.(Circuit Benell) at 
Delhi in S.A.O. No. 182-D of 1965. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CENTRAL Jl,\.:NK v. GOKAL CHAND (Bachawat, J.) 
311 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, C. L. Chopra, J. B. Dadachanji 
for the appellant. 
Bishan Narain, S. S. Chadha and Sardar Bahadur, for the· 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. This appeal raises a question of construction 
of s. 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.(Act 59 of 1958). 
The appellant is a tenant of premises No. 7, Sriram Road, Delhi, 
under the respondent. The respondent made an application to 
the Controller for eviction of the appellant on the ground that he 
bona fide required the premises for his occupation. The res-
pondent resides at No. 17, Alipur Road, Delhi. 
The appellant 
filed an application before the Controller alleging that the accom-
modation in premises No. 17, Alipur Road consisted of more 
than three rooms and consequently, the respondent did not bona 
fide require the premises in dispute for his own occupation and 
praying for the issue of a commission to go to No. 17, Alipur 
Road and to prepare a plan of the premises. By his order dated 
May 29, 1965 the Controller rejected the application. He said : 
"The petitioner came into the witness box and the 
respondent 
had full opportunity 
to 
cross-examine 
him regarding the extent of accommodation in his pos-
session. He has stated that the other portions of 17, 
Alipur Road, Delhi are in possession of other persons. 
Previously also, such an application was made by the 
tenant which was disallowed by me, vide my order dated 
7-3-1964. I see no further reason to review my pre-
vious order and allow this application." 
From this order, the appellant filed an appeal to the Rent Con-
trol Tribunal. The Tribunal held that no appeal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.