9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of s. 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 regarding the right of appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. 2. Determination of whether an appeal lies to the Tribunal from an order of the Controller under s. 38(1). 3. Analysis of the scope of interlocutory orders and their appealability under the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The judgment addressed the interpretation of s. 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which provides the right of appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal from every order of the Controller made under the Act. The Court emphasized that the words "every order of the Controller made under this Act" do not encompass interlocutory orders, which are procedural in nature and do not impact the rights or liabilities of the parties involved. The objective of s. 38(1) is to grant appeal rights to parties aggrieved by orders affecting their rights or liabilities. Issue 2: The primary question examined was whether an appeal lay to the Tribunal under s. 38(1) from an order of the Controller. In this case, the Controller had refused to issue a commission for inspection and preparation of a plan of premises, which was deemed a procedural order not altering any rights or liabilities of the appellant. The Court concluded that the order in question did not warrant an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal under s. 38(1) as it was not a final order impacting substantive rights. Issue 3: Furthermore, the judgment delved into the scope of interlocutory orders under the Act, highlighting that such orders are steps taken towards final adjudication and assist in regulating the procedure of the pending proceeding. Interlocutory orders, including those related to summoning witnesses, discovery of documents, or inspection of premises, do not independently affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. Therefore, subject to certain limitations, appeals to the Rent Control Tribunal are generally reserved for final orders that substantially impact the parties' rights or liabilities. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the order in question was a procedural interlocutory order and did not warrant an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal under s. 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The judgment underscored the distinction between final orders affecting substantive rights and procedural interlocutory orders, clarifying the scope of appealability under the Act.
|
