Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Such order dated 01.07.2022 is under challenge.

11. I may reiterate that the question to be adjudicated is to assess the remedy available to any such tenant- whether an appeal under Section 38 of DRC Act would lie or whether, in view of bar provided under Section 25B(8) of DRC Act, only a revision is competent.

12. The merits or demerits of the objection filed by the tenants are not to be gone into, at the moment.

13. Admittedly, as per Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, any tenanted premises which are required bonafide by landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, eviction can be sought.

14. A summary procedure was introduced in DRC Act and by virtue of Act 18 of 1976, Chapter IIIA was inserted in DRC Act.

15. Such Chapter IIIA reads as under:-

46. Reliance on Central Bank of India (supra) is also misplaced. Reason is two-fold. Firstly, it pertained to a different proposition as the question was whether appeal was maintainable against an order which was mere interlocutory in nature. It was observed that the object of Section 38(1) of DRC Act is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affected his right or liability. In the context of Section 38(1) of DRC Act, the words "every order of the Controller made under this Act", though very wide, would not include interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. The challenge therein was to an order refusing appointment of commissioner for preparation of plan of tenanted premises. Secondly and more importantly, said judgment is prior to introduction of Chapter-IIIA of DRC Act.

48. In Azian Bi (supra), the nature of order under challenge was different i.e. order refusing to stay dispossession under section 25 of DRC Act. Here, we are not concerned with said section. Moreover, said case also seems to be prior to the introduction of Chapter IIIA in DRC Act. For the same reason, no benefit can be drawn from Kundan Lal Handa (supra).

49. R.K. Sharma Vs. Parveen Gupta (supra) deals with a petition filed under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act which is, admittedly, not to be tried in summary manner as it does not fall within the purview of Chapter IIIA of DRC Act.