Delhi District Court
Sh. Harish Kumar vs Smt. Savitri Devi on 1 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VINOD GOEL, DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGECUMADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL
TRIBUNAL: SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
MCA No.03/14
Unique Identification No. 02402C0032332014
Sh. Harish Kumar
S/o Sh. Durjan Singh,
R/o X/2249, Mahila Colony,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi110031. ....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Savitri Devi
W/o Sh. A.C. Goyal,
R/o 145, J and KBlock,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092. ....Respondent
Date of institution : 29.01.2014 Date of Argument : 01.09.2014 Date of Decision : 01.09.2014
Appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the impugned order dated 03.01.2014 passed by Ld. Rent Controller, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi in eviction petition no. E-430/08. MCA No.21/14 Unique Identification No. 02402C0118382014 Harish Kumar vs. Smt. Savitri Devi MCA No. 03/14 & MCA No. 21/14 Dated 01.09.2014 Page 1 of 8 Sh. Harish Kumar S/o Sh. Durjan Singh, R/o X/2249, Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi110031. ....Appellant Versus Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Sh. A.C. Goyal, R/o 145, J and KBlock, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092. ....Respondent Date of institution : 22.04.2014 Date of Argument : 01.09.2014 Date of Decision : 01.09.2014 Appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the impugned order dated 03.03.2014 passed by Ld. Rent Controller, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi in eviction petition no. E-430/08. 01.09.2014 Present: Appellant Sh. Harish Kumar in person.
Sh. Vivek Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. Judgment
1. The appellant/tenant has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the "DRC Act") feeling aggrieved by Harish Kumar vs. Smt. Savitri Devi MCA No. 03/14 & MCA No. 21/14 Dated 01.09.2014 Page 2 of 8 impugned order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the Ld. Rent Controller, Shahdara by which the request of the appellant/tenant to dismiss the eviction petition for nonappearance of the petitioner/landlady in witness box was declined and the appellant/tenant was given opportunity to lead his evidence. He has challenged this impugned order dated 03.01.2014 vide MCA bearing no. 03/2014. Subsequently, on 30.01.2014, the appellant/tenant filed his affidavit alongwith several documents with a list. The appellant/tenant supplied the copy of affidavit and sought a date to supply the copies of voluminous documents to the landlady/petitioner. On 03.03.2014, the landlady/petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 (a) (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for a direction to the appellant/tenant to supply her copies of the documents. The landlady/petitioner also prayed that the appellant/tenant has not taken permission to file those documents and on raising of this objection, the appellant/tenant submitted to the ld. Rent Controller that he will file necessary application seeking permission for placing on record new documents. Application of the landlady/petitioner was disposed off by the Ld. Rent Controller on 03.03.2014 with liberty to the landlady/petitioner to raise objections in reply to the proposed application. The appellant/tenant has again invoked the appellate Harish Kumar vs. Smt. Savitri Devi MCA No. 03/14 & MCA No. 21/14 Dated 01.09.2014 Page 3 of 8 jurisdiction of this court under Section 38 of the "DRC Act" feeling aggrieved by this order dated 03.03.2014 vide MCA bearing no. 21/2014.
2. I have heard the appellant/tenant in person and Sh. Vivek Pandey, Advocate for the landlady/petitioner in both appeals and very carefully perused the material available on record.
3. Since both these appeals vide MCA No. 03/2014 and MCA No. 21/2014 have arisen out of same eviction petition no. E430/08, I intend to decide both these appeals by a common judgment.
4. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to advert to sub Section (1) of Section 38 of the "DRC Act" which reads as under: "(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act only on question of law to the Rent control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) consisting of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette."
5. A perusal of this provision mandates that an appeal shall lie against every order of the Rent Controller but only on the question of law to the Rent Control Tribunal. The question involved in both these appeals is whether this provision of filing appeal against "every order"
of the Rent Controller is wide enough to cover every interlocutory Harish Kumar vs. Smt. Savitri Devi MCA No. 03/14 & MCA No. 21/14 Dated 01.09.2014 Page 4 of 8 order which is merely procedural in nature and does not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. This question has come up for consideration before the Apex Court in Central Bank of India vs. Shri Gokal chand 1967 SCR 310 and it was held that the object of Section 38 (1) of the "DRC Act" is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. In a pending proceeding, the Rent Controller may pass many interlocutory orders under Sections 36 & 37 of the "DRC Act" such as regarding summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witnesses, fixing a date of hearing and admissibility of a document or relevancy of a question. All these 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 relevant para of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under: "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 Harish Kumar vs. Smt. Savitri Devi MCA No. 03/14 & MCA No. 21/14 Dated 01.09.2014 Page 5 of 8 are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. In a pending proceeding, the Controller may pass many interlocutory orders under ss. 36 & 37, such as orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document or the relevancy of a question. All these 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. It is open to any party to set forth the error, defect or irregularity, if any, in such an order as a ground of objection in his appeal from the final order in the main proceeding. Subject to the aforesaid limitation, an appeal lies to the Rent Control Tribunal from every order passed by the Controller under the Act. Even an interlocutory order passed under s. 37(2) is an order passed under the Act and is subject to appeal under s. 38(1) provided 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."
6. This judgment has been followed by our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Raj Kumar Kapoor vs. C.K. Dass & Ors. 67 Harish Kumar vs. Smt. Savitri Devi MCA No. 03/14 & MCA No. 21/14 Dated 01.09.2014 Page 6 of 8 (1997) Delhi Law Times 701. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Gokal Chand's case (Supra), the remedy of a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller including interlocutory order, is to file an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and such orders which affect valuable rights of a party would be judicially reviewed in appeal by the Tribunal. The legality, propriety and validity of procedural orders can be decided in an appeal against the final order and till then the person aggrieved must wait. Such interlocutory orders cannot be challenged then and thereby filing an appeal before the Tribunal, cannot also be challenged in revision before the High Court. The relevant para no. 9 of the judgment reads as under: "It is thus clear that remedy of a person aggrieved by an order passed by Rent Controller, including interlocutory order, is to file an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. Such orders which affect valuable rights of a party would be judicially reviewed in appeal by the Tribunal. The legality, propriety and validity of procedural orders can be decided in an appeal against the final order and till then the person aggrieved must wait. Such interlocutory orders as cannot be challenged then and thereby filing an appeal before the Tribunal, cannot also be challenged in Harish Kumar vs. Smt. Savitri Devi MCA No. 03/14 & MCA No. 21/14 Dated 01.09.2014 Page 7 of 8 revision before the High Court. This is so not because a finality has been attached to such orders by Section 35 of the Act but because the Rent Controller is not a Court subordinate to High Court, though it will be within the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution."
7. Now while applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Gokal Chand's case (Supra) and by our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Raj Kumar Kapoor's case (Supra), both orders dated 03.01.2014 and 03.03.2014 are interlocutory in nature and do not affect the rights or liabilities of any party. Therefore, both the appeals MCA No. 03/2014 against the impugned order dated 03.01.2014 and MCA No. 21/2014 against the impugned order dated 03.03.2014 are not maintainable. Moreover, no question of law is involved in both these appeals. As such, both these appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Trial Court record be sent back with an attested copy of the instant judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 1st September, 2014. (Vinod Goel) District & Sessions Judge, Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi.
Harish Kumar vs. Smt. Savitri Devi MCA No. 03/14 & MCA No. 21/14 Dated 01.09.2014 Page 8 of 8