Gian Wati and Others vs Ranpat Singh and Others

V.S. Deshpande, J.

(1) The Controller disallowed the application of the applicants landlords for the amendment of the application for the eviction of the respondent tenant and others. Controller also allowed an application by three persons Man Singh Rai Singh and Kamal Singh for being joined 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 preliminary objection is urged to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the orders coil-id not said to be orders 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 u/s 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 u/s 38(1), According to their Lordships such an order must affect some right or Hability. of any 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 amendments of the case. An order refusing the-amendment of the eviction application 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 opportunity of Urging against these-orders in the appeal which may come to be filed after the petition for eviction is decided on merits The preliminary objection su coeds and the appeal is held not maintainable It is Therefore, dismissed without any orders as to costs.