V.S. Deshpande, J.
(1) The Controller disallowed the application of the applicants landlordsfor the amendment of the application for the eviction of the respondent tenant and others. Controller also allowed anapplication by three persons Man Singh.Rai Singh and Kamal Singh for being jorned as respondents. The landlord appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal against both these orders bit the appeal was dismissed. The landlords have again challenged the same orders in this second appeal On behalf of the respondents, a prelimary objection is urged to-the maintainability of the appeal on the grough that the orders coil-id not said t6 beorders under the Act' within the meaning of section 38(1) of the Delhi Rent- Control Act and they were- not appealable even to the Rent Control Tribunal there- under muchless to the High -Court under Section 39 of the Act.
(2) In Central Bank of India Ltd. v, Gokal Chand^, the Supreme Court laid down the test of what is an order under the Act' which is appealable under Section 38(1), According to their Lordships such an order must affect some right or Hability.of asy party and must not be merely procedural in other words/such an order must in some way decide the merits or a part of the ments of the case. An order refusing the-amendment of the eviction aplication for joining some strangers as parties to it does not decide in any way the merits of the case or any part of-it. The Tights of then parties are left intact as they were. The landlord 'would have the opportanity of Urging against these-orders in the appeal which may come to be filed after the potition for eviction is decided on merits The preliminary objection su coeds and the appeal is held not maintainable It is thereforee, dismissed without any orders as to costs.