Bant Singh Gill vs Shanti Devi & Ors on 1 March, 1967
In Bant
Singh Gill v. Shanti Devi AIR 1967 SC 1360 the provisions of section 34 of the
Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 came up for consideration and the word
'order' used therein without any limitation was interpreted to exclude all
interlocutory orders or other similar orders passed in the course of the trial of a suit.
The order of the trial court holding that the suit had not abated and that it shall
continue was held to be an interlocutory order against which no appeal could be filed
though the said finding could be challenged in an appeal against the final order to be
passed in the suit. In the case before us, the adjudicating officer is of the view that
the appellant had not shown sufficient cause as a result of which the proceedings
could not be dropped and that the inquiry shall continue. If the final order passed by
the adjudicating officer goes against the appellant, it shall be open to him to
challenge the said finding in that appeal. In that sense the order passed by the
adjudicating officer is an interlocutory order against which no appeal would lie. The
fact that the order is interlocutory is also clear from Rule 4(1) and (3) of the Rules.
The adjudicating officer had issued a notice under Rule 4(1) in the first instance
5
officer found that no cause had been shown and, therefore, the inquiry should be
held. It is this decision which was communicated by the impugned letter. It follows
that if the appellant had shown sufficient cause the adjudicating officer would have
dropped the proceedings but this is not the case. Since the impugned letter
communicates to the appellant that the inquiry shall continue, the decision taken by
the adjudicating officer at this stage is obviously interlocutory in nature and does not
affect the rights of the appellant. As already observed, if the final order goes against
the appellant it will be open to him to challenge the same in appeal and in that appeal
it will be open to him to challenge the decision of the adjudicating officer to continue
with the inquiry. The order being interlocutory, we are of the considered view that
no appeal is competent. In this view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised
on behalf of the respondent is upheld. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no
order as to the costs.