the delhi rent companytrol act 1958 empowers the companytroller to pass orders for fixing the standard rent or lawful increase thereof eviction of tenants and various other orders on the applications filed before him by the landlord or the tenant.
1 see no further reason to review my previous order and allow this application.
he said the petitioner came into the witness box and the respondent had full opportunity to cross examine him regarding the extent of accommodation in his possession.
bishan narain s. s. chadha and sardar bahadur for the respondent.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated february 8 1966 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in s.a.0.
v. gupte solicitor general c. l. chopra j. b. dadachanji for the appellant.
the high companyrt agreed with this decision of the tribunal.
in the companytext of s. 38 1 the words every order of the companytroller made under this act though very wide do number include interlocutory orders which are merely procedural and do number affect the rights or liabilities of the parties.
under ss.
the appellant is a tenant of premises number 7 sriram road delhi under the respondent.
from this order the appellant filed an appeal to the rent control tribunal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1339 of 1966.
number 182 d of 1965.
the appellant number appeals to this court by special leave.
he has stated that the other portions of 17 alipur road delhi are in possession of other persons.
36 and 37 2 the companytroller may pass interlocutory orders in a pending proceeding.
the respondent resides at number 17 alipur road delhi.
the respondent made an application to the companytroller for eviction of the appellant on the ground that he bona fide required the premises for his occupation.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bachawat j. this appeal raises a question of companystruction of s. 38 1 of the delhi rent companytrol act 1958 act 59 of 1958 .
previously also such an application was made by the tenant which was disallowed by me vide my order dated 7 3 1964.
the appellant filed an application before the controller alleging that the accommodation in premises number 17 alipur road companysisted of more than three rooms and consequently the respondent did number bona fide require the premises in dispute for his own occupation and praying for the issue of a companymission to go to number 17 alipur road and to prepare a plan of the premises.
by his order dated may 29 1965 the companytroller rejected the application.
