# CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. SHRJ GOKAL CHAND

- **Citation:** [1967] 1 S.C.R. 310
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-09-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1339 of 1966
- **Bench:** K. N. Wanchoo, J.C. Shah, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/central-bank-of-india-v-shrj-gokal-chand-3825
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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 Tribunal 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 context 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.

## Text

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 Tribunal 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 context 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 respondent resides at No. 17, Alipur Road, Delhi.
The appellant
filed an application before the Controller alleging that the accommodation 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 possession. 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 previous order and allow this application."
From this order, the appellant filed an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal held that no appeal lay from the
aforesaid order of the Controller under s. 38 (1) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, and on this findilig dismissed the appeal. The
High Court agreed with this decision cif the Tribunal. . The appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave. The question
in this appeal is whether an appeal lay to the Tribunal under
s. 38(1) from the aforesaid order of the Controller.
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 empowers the Controller tg pas8 orders for fixing the standard rent or lawful increase
thereof, eviction of tenants and various other orders on the applications filed before him by the landlord or the tenant. Under
ss. 36 and 37(2), the Controller may pass interlocutory orders in
a -pending proceeding. Under s. 36, he may pass orders for t)le
summoning of witnesses, the issue of conimissfons for examination of witnesses discovery, production and inspection of docu-
312
SUPllBMB COu&T llEPOllTS
[1967] I S.C.R
ments and inspection of premises.
By s. 37(2), he is required to
follow as far as may be the practice and procedure of a Court of
small causes, and following such practice and procedure, he may
pass other interlocutory orders. Section 38 gives a right of appeal
to the Rent Control Tribunal from every order of the Controller
made under the Act. The Tribunal has all the powers vested in
a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when hearing
an appeal. Under s. 39 an appeal lies to the High Court from
an order of the Tribunal if the appeal involves some substantial
questions of law.
By s. 43, save as expressly provided in the Act,
every order made by the Controller or an order passed on appeal
under the Act is final and cannot be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding.
Section 38(1)
reads:
"An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act 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."
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 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
and 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 ope.n to. any party
to set forth the error, defect or irregulanty, if any, m 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
11nder s. 38(1) provided it affects some right or liability of any
party. Thus, an order of the Rent Controller refusing to set aside
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
CENTRAL BANK v. GOKAL CHAND (Bachawat, J.)
313
an ex parte order fs subject to appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal.
Similar considerations have induced the Courts to give a limited construction on the apparently wide words of other statutes
conferring rights of appeal. Section 202 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 confers a right of appeal "from any order or decision made or given in the matter of the winding up of a i;ompany
by the Court." In Shankarlal Aggarwal v. Shankarlal Poddai (1),
this Court decided that these words, though wide, would exclude
merely procedural orders or those which did not affect· the rights
or liabilities of parties.
The order of the Controller dated May 29, 1965 refusing to
iss11e a commission for inspection and preparation of a plan of
premises No. 17, Alipur Road was a mere procedural order not
affecting any right or liability of the appellant. The. issue of a
commission is only a step for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case. It is open to the appellant to canvass the error,
defect or irregularity, if any, in the order in an appeal from the
final order passed in the proceeding for eviction. .But no appeal
from the order lay to the Rent Control Tribunal under s. 38(1)
The appeal is d;smissed with costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed,
(1)"(1964) 1 S.C.R. 717; 736.