Bench: K. Subba Rao, C.J., Raghubar Dayal, J., R.S. Bachawat, J., and V.C. Ramawami, J.
FACTS
The respondents were the owners of certain premises in New Delhi. The lessee, a company, of these premises assigned the lease to the appellant. Alleging that the transfer was done without their consent, the respondents filed an application before the Rent Controller under s. 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for the eviction of the appellant. The Controller allowed the petition and an appeal by the appellant was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The appellant then filed a second appeal in the High Court under s. 39 of the Act. This second appeal was dismissed by the Single Judge and when a further appeal under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent came up for disposal before a Division Bench, it was dismissed as not maintainable.
ISSUES
Whether an appeal lies to the High Court under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of a Single Judge in a second appeal under s. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Whether the words "final order" in s. 43 of the Act include a judgment in a second appeal under s. 39 of the Act.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that an appeal lies to the High Court under cl. 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of a Single Judge in a second appeal under s. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court reasoned that the words "final order" in s. 43 of the Act do not include a judgment in a second appeal under s. 39 of the Act.
Kommentit