JUDGMENT CM APPL. 23770/2022 in CM(M) 470/2022 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM(M) 470/2022 & CM APPL. 23769/2022 (stay) 1. The petitioner Shri Dina Nath was the tenant in Eviction Petition 1030/14/07, instituted by the respondent-landlord Subhash Chand Saini under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (j) to the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the DRC Act'). 2. The challenge under Clause (j) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the DRC Act was withdrawn by the respondent during the proceedings before the learned Additional Rent Controller ('the learned ARC'). 3. The prayer for eviction, under the remaining clauses of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the DRC Act was adjudicated by the learned ARC vide order dated 8th January, 2021. The learned ARC rejected the prayer of the respondent for eviction of the petitioner under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 14(1). However, the prayer for eviction of the petitioner under Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the DRC Act was granted vide orders dated 8th January, 2021 and 26th March, 2021 respectively. 4. The learned ARC had, during the proceedings before him, passed orders on 8th January, 2020, closing the right of the petitioner to cross examine PW-1, and on 28th November, 2020, dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking review of the said order. 5. These orders were assailed by the petitioner, during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned ARC, by way of Appeal No 51/2020. 6. While the said Appeal No 51/2020 was pending, the learned ARC proceeded to allow the respondent's eviction petition under Clause (b) of Section 14(1) of the DRC Act vide judgment dated 8th January, 2021 and under Clause (a) of Section 14(1) of the DRC Act vide judgment dated 26th March, 2021. 7. As, with the passing of the eviction orders, Appeal 51/2020, challenging the orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020 had been rendered infructuous, the petitioner withdrew the said appeal on 7th April, 2021, in view of the law, enunciated by the Supreme Court in Achal Mishra v. Rama Shanker Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 531 , to the effect that interim orders could be challenged in the appeal preferred against the final decision. 8. 8. As such, in RCT 29/2021, which challenged the decision of the learned ARC under Clause (a) to proviso of Section 14(1) of the DRC Act, the petitioner included a challenge to the orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020. 9. The appeal from which the present proceedings emanate i.e. RCT 06/2021 was, however, filed on 30 th January, 2021, prior to the withdrawal of Appeal 51/2020 on 7th April, 2021. As such, the challenge to the orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020 could not be incorporated in the said appeal. 10. As such, the petitioner moved an application, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), before the learned RCT, seeking permission to amend RCT 06/2021 and include, in the said appeal, a challenge to the orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020, which also figured in RCT 29/2021, preferred against the order of the learned ARC, under Clause (a) of Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act. The impugned order dated 7th April, 2022, passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge acting as the Rent Controller Tribunal (the learned RCT), rejects the said application. 11. The learned RCT has, in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, proceeded on two premises. The first is that, having challenged the orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020 in RCT 29/2021, the petitioner could not seek to challenge the said orders all over again in RCT 06/2021. The second is that, having withdrawn RCT 51/2020, challenging the orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020 unconditionally, the petitioner could not seek to amend RCT 06/2021 and include a challenge to the said orders. 12. Prima facie, neither of these findings is legally sustainable. 13. I am complete unable to understand how the fact that the petitioner had challenged the said orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020 in RCT 29/2021 could operate as an embargo to the petitioner's challenging the said orders in RCT 06/2021. The learned RCT appears to have overlooked the fact that RCT 6/2021 and RCT 29/2021 were directed against two independent final orders, passed by the learned ARC, upholding the prayer for eviction of the respondent predicated on Clauses (b) and (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the DRC Act. 14. The learned RCT appears to have overlooked the fact that RCT 6/2021 and RCT 29/2021 were directed against two independent final orders, passed by the learned ARC, upholding the prayer for eviction of the respondent predicated on Clauses (b) and (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the DRC Act. 14. If the petitioner was entitled to challenge the interlocutory orders passed by the learned ARC, that right would obviously enure in every appeal that the petitioner was entitled to file against the final orders. There is no principle in law to the effect that the right to challenge the interlocutory order, once exercised in the appeal filed against the order passed by the learned ARC under Clause (a) of Section 14(1) of DRC Act, stood extinguished and was not open to be urged in the appeal filed against the eviction order passed under Clause (b) of Section 14(1). 15. The second ground on which the learned RCT has proceeded to reject the petitioner's application, is also unsustainable. Mr. Shiv Charan Garg has invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Achal Mishra supra which holds, prima facie, that interlocutory orders can also be challenged in the appeal directed against the final decision. It is not in dispute that eviction proceedings were pending before the learned ARC at the time when RCT 6/2021 came to be filed by the petitioner. It was obviously for this reason that the petitioner did not include, in RCT 6/2021, any challenge to the orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020. Once the petitioner had withdrawn RCT 51/2020, on 7th April, 2021, and had in fact included a challenge to the orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020 in RCT 29/2021 - which came to be filed thereafter - he could not be legitimately denied his right to challenge the orders dated 8th January, 2020 and 28th November, 2020 in RCT 6/2021 as well, by amending the petition accordingly. 16. In view thereof, the impugned orders appear, prima facie, to be vulnerable to challenge. 17. Accordingly, issue notice, returnable on 11th October, 2022. 18. Notice be served on the respondent by all modes permissible at this time as well as dasti and through learned Counsel who had appeared before the learned RCT. 19. 16. In view thereof, the impugned orders appear, prima facie, to be vulnerable to challenge. 17. Accordingly, issue notice, returnable on 11th October, 2022. 18. Notice be served on the respondent by all modes permissible at this time as well as dasti and through learned Counsel who had appeared before the learned RCT. 19. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioner, who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing. 20. Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings before the learned RCT in RCT 6/2021 shall remain stayed.