Skip to content


Prem Das Chela Vs. Piarey Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 316 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1974RLR301
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act - Sections 36; Constitution of India - Article 227
AppellantPrem Das Chela
RespondentPiarey Lal
Advocates: S.C. Gulati, Adv
Excerpt:
- - (1) there is no scope in article 227 of the constitution of india for interfering with an order passed by the 'controller' who is a creature of section 35(1) of act 59 of 1958, he exercises the powers contained in the civil procedure code in terms of the jurisdiction furnished by sections 25, 37 (2) and 42 of the said act as well as rule 23 framed under act, in all circumstances he is the 'controller' under the act and his orders subject to section 43 thereof become final......the powers contained in the civil procedure code in terms of the jurisdiction furnished by sections 25, 37 (2) and 42 of the said act as well as rule 23 framed under act, in all circumstances he is the 'controller' under the act and his orders subject to section 43 thereof become final. where his order is non-appealable the grievance can be raised in the appeal provided for by section 38 of the act. (2) in this case in paras 16 and 18 (b) in the application, dated the 4th of october. 1969 it was mentioned that premises in part had been sub let to badlu ram. there was no justification for moving the application dated the 10th of august, 1973 so late impleading him as a party. (3) the petition is meritless and is dismissed in limini.
Judgment:

P.S. Safeer, J.

(1) There is no scope in Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interfering with an order passed by the 'Controller' who is a creature of section 35(1) of Act 59 of 1958, He exercises the powers contained in the civil Procedure code in terms of the jurisdiction furnished by sections 25, 37 (2) and 42 of the said Act as well as rule 23 framed under Act, In all circumstances he is the 'controller' under the Act and his orders subject to section 43 thereof become final. Where his order is non-appealable the grievance can be raised in the appeal provided for by section 38 of the Act.

(2) In this case in paras 16 and 18 (b) in the application, dated the 4th of October. 1969 it was mentioned that premises in part had been sub let to Badlu Ram. There was no justification for moving the application dated the 10th of August, 1973 so late impleading him as a party.

(3) The petition is meritless and is dismissed in limini.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //