Skip to content


B.S. Bawa Vs. Desraj Khanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 275 of 1972
Judge
Reported in1973RLR20
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 115; Constitution of India - Article 227
AppellantB.S. Bawa
RespondentDesraj Khanna
Advocates: C.M. Kohli and; V.K. Verma, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....the controller appointed under the rent control act is not a civil court governed by the code of civil procedure, although the provisions of the code provide a guide as far as possible to regulate this procedure not otherwise provided by the act.; (ii) constitution of india - article 227 - applicability of -- when may this article be invoked.; that article 227 of the constitution of india may be invoked interalia, to correct an order passed by an inferior tribunal not having jurisdiction to pass it. but, if it has jurisdiction, as the controller in the instant case has, to pass an interlocutory order of a procedural nature, then this court would not step in with the aid of article 227 to interfere with such order. if the order is considered to be an order affecting the rights of the..........j.(1) the only question involved in this revision petition under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, directed against an interlocutory order of the additional controller, allowing the amendment of respondent's eviction petition, is about its maintainability.(2) the respondent filed an eviction petition under section 14 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 for the petitioner tenant's eviction. he then filed an application for amendment of the petition by adding a new plea of second default in payment of rent referred to in the proviso to sub section (2) of section 14. the amendment was allowed. no appeal was filed against the amendment the tenant has filed a petition of revision under section 115 of the code of civil procedure.(3) when the attention of the learned counsel.....
Judgment:

P.N. Khanna, J.

(1) The only question involved in this revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directed against an interlocutory order of the Additional Controller, allowing the amendment of respondent's eviction petition, is about its maintainability.

(2) The respondent filed an eviction petition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for the petitioner tenant's eviction. He then filed an application for amendment of the petition by adding a new plea of second default in payment of rent referred to in the proviso to sub section (2) of section 14. The amendment was allowed. No appeal was filed against the amendment The tenant has filed a petition of revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3) When the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was drawn to the repeatedly expressed views of this court that the Controller appointed under the Rent Control Act is not a civil court governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, although the provisions of the Code provide a guide as far as possible to regulate the procedure not otherwise provided by the Act, she prayed that her petition be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(4) Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be invoked, inter alia, to correct an order passed by an inferior Tribunal not having jurisdiction to pass it. But if it has jurisdiction as the Controller in the instant case has, to pass an interlocutory order of a procedural nature, then this court would not step in with the aid of Article 227 to interfere with such order. If the order is considered to be an order affecting the rights of the petitioner (about which no opinion is expressed), then the petitioner should have gone up to the Tribunal in appeal. Not having done so, the order has become final under section 43 of the Act and Article 227 is not available to the petitioner to pray for its correction. Article 227 provides an extraordinary remedy to be utilised in a case when other remedy is not available. In either case the present petition is without any merit and is dismissed as such, without any order as to costs.

--- *** ---


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