Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an appeal lay under section 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 from a Controller's interlocutory order refusing a commission for inspection and preparation of a plan of the premises.
Analysis: The appellate provision, though broadly worded, was construed as confined to orders that affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. Orders passed in a pending proceeding which are merely procedural, including orders relating to discovery, inspection, commissions, summoning of witnesses, or similar steps in aid of the hearing, do not by themselves determine any substantive right or liability. Such matters can be challenged, if necessary, in an appeal from the final order in the main proceeding. The refusal to issue a commission for inspection and preparation of a plan was held to be only a procedural step assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case and not an order having independent appealability.
Conclusion: No appeal lay to the Rent Control Tribunal from the Controller's order refusing the commission, and the appeal was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A broadly worded appellate provision does not extend to purely procedural interlocutory orders that do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties.