I.D Dua., C.J:— This is a landlord's second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 and is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 4th October, 1963 dismissing the appellant's appeal from the order of the Rent Controller dated 30th March, 1963 holding that Gajendra Sharma (respondent in this Court) continued to be a tenant within the meaning of the definition contained in section 2 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and was, therefore, competent to file the application for fixation of standard rent of the suit permises as a tenant. The circumstances leading to this litigation are that the landlord had initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, in which on 18th April, 1957, a consent decree for eviction was made. Thereafter the landlord went to the Slum Authority, but permission to evict the tenant was declined On 2nd April, 1959, Gajendra Sharma tenant presented the petition out of which this appeal arises for fixation of standard rent under section 6 and 9 of the Delhi Rent Act of 1958. The standard rent was fixed in those proceedings by the Rent Controller, but on appeal preferred by the landlord in the Rent Control Tribunal, he was allowed to amend his written statement whereby he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Such a prayer, it may be pointed out, had been refused by the Rent Controller earlier. The matter apparently went back to the Rent Controller and in March, 1963 it was decided by him that the parties between themselves had again accepted the position that Gajendra Sharma was tenant in the room in dispute belonging to Joti Parshad landlord. On this conclusion, the petition filed by Gajendra Sharma was held to be competent as he continued to be a tenant within the meaning of seetion 2(1) of the Rent Control Act, 1958.

2. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal disagreed with the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that no fresh contractual tenancy as held by the Controller had come into existence The Tribunal added that as permission to execute the ejectment decree had been refused, there was no subsisting decree for ejectment against the tenant, with the result that he did not ceased to be a tenant within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Rent Act of 1958. The appeal on this basis was dismissed.

3. On second appeal in this Court, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that the present appeal is barred by time. It has been pointed out that the impungned order was made on 4-10-1963 and an application for a certified copy thereof was made on 9-10-1963 which was attested on 26-11-1963. A copy of the Rent Controller's order was applied for on 13-1-1964 and the same was ready on 14-1-1964. The copy of the grounds of appeal in the Tribunal below was applied for on 17-12-1963 which was attested on 1-2-1964. The appeal, as stated by the counsel for the respondent, while raising his preliminary objection, was presented in this Court on 17-12-1963. The limitation being sixty days, there can be no doubt that after deducting the period taken in securing a copy of the order of the Tribunal, the appeal was presented amply within limitation on 17-12-1963 The objection raised in that along with the appeal, the certified copies of the grounds of appeal in the Tribunal below and of the order of the Controller were not attached with the memorandum of appeal. Those, it is stated at the bar, were filed in this Court on 3-2-1964. On that day, it is submitted by the respondent, the appeal would have been hopelessly barred by time. Apparently it seems that these copies were filed about 14 days beyound limitation.

4. The appellant's learned Counsel has submitted that he had along with the memorandum of appeal presented an application for exemption from filing certified copies of the order of the Rent Controller and of the grounds of appeal. This application was supported by an affidavit and it was asserted there in that the appellant Joti Pershad had applied for the certified copies of the order of the Rent Controller and of the grounds of appeal, but the same were not ready uptil 17-12-1963, when this application was presented. It was accordingly prayed that the appellant be exempted from filing those certified copies, though it was represented in paragraph 5 of that application that the appellant undertook to file the certified copies of those documents as soon as he received them. From the certified copy of the order of the Controller produced by the appellant, I and that the same was applied for on 13-1-1964 which quite clearly shows that this copy had not been applied for on 17-12-1963 when an affidavit was sworn by Shri Joti Pershad that he had already applied for a certified copy of the order of Shri Asa Singh Gill, Rent Controller, dated 29-3-1963. Shri Joti Pershad, I am informed, has since died and in fact this appeal is being pursued by his heirs and legal. representatives. The counsel for the appellant has suggested that an application for a certified copy of Rent Controller's order was actually ayplied for as represented in Shri Joti Pershad's affidavit, but the same was misplaced and a fresh application was latter presented on 13-1-1964. There is nothing on the record to support the suggestion, but on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to pursue this matter any further.

5. Reverting to the question of limitation, it is submitted by Shri Maheshwari that a prayer for exemption was made and the same must be taken to have been granted because the appeal was entertained and actually posted for preliminary hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court.

6. In my view, when an application for exemption like the present is filed in this Court, unless and untill the prayer is granted, the appellant cannot claim any relief against the rigour of the law of limitation. It was, in my opinion, the duty of the counsel at the time of preliminary hearing before Dulat. J. on 20-12-1963 to secure an order of exemption, I am, however, disinclined in the present case to penalise the appellant because I know that as a matter of practice, great laxity has been prevailing in the office of this Court in drawing the attention of the admitting Judge to such applications. It is only recently that this Court has started being strict in this respect. But be that as it may, the fact remains that the office entertained the appeal without certified copies and this matter was not brought to the notice of the admitting Judge for the purpose of securing suitable order on the miscellaneous application for exemption. In these circumstances, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing in this Court the certified copies of the Rent Controller's order and of the grounds of appeal.

7. In so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the appellant's learned counsel has drawn my attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Lakhmi Chand v. Kauran Devi . A.I R. 1966 S. C. 1003, in which it has been observed that under Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Act, 1958, a tenant does not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made. It was added in that decisson that a tenant against whom a decree for enjectment was made under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, which decree could not be executed because of Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. which had come into force, was not a tenant within the meaning of section 2(1)of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that section 19 of the Slum Areas Act did not in any way affect the definition of the “tenant” in the Delhi Rent Control Act which must be read by itself. This decision affirmed the Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Smt. Kauran Devi v. Lakhmi Chand . I. L. R. 1964 2 Punj. 470.. This decision, in my view, completely supports the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant. If, therefore, the respondent in this Court is not a tenant, then obviously his application under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 would be incompetent and the decisions of the Rent Controller and of the Rent Control Tribunal must be reversed.

8. Shri Gupta has submitted on behalf of the respondent that in the case in hand, the ejectment decree was made as far back as 1957, with the result that the said decree must be held to be controlled by the Delhi and Ajmer Marwara Rent Control Act of 1952 and that for this reason, the ratio of the Supreme Court decision must be held to be inapplicable to the case in hand. This argument is difficult to sustain in face of the decision of the Supreme Court because in that case also, the decree had been made on 11.10.1956 when the Act of 1952 was in force.

9. In view of what has just been stated above, it is unnecessary to consider the argument addres-ed on behalf of the respondent that by virture of section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act and by virtue of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shyamal v. Umacharan . A. I. R. 1961 M. P. 49. a person whose tenancy has been determinad but who continues to remain in possession of the tenanted premises without the assent of the landlord after the determination of the tenancy is to be considered as a tenant for the purposes of the M.P Accommodation Control Act of 1955. We have not been taken into the scheme of the M.P Act with which that Court was concerned in the reported decision.

10. The next contention raised by the respondent is that the impugned order is not appealable because nothing has been decided by this order. Support for this submission has been sought from the Supreme Court decision in the Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand . A.I.R 1967 S.C 779, in which it is observed that no appeal lies under the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958-from interlocutory orders which are merely procedural and do not affect rights or liabilities of parties, for errors. defects or irregularites in such orders can be challenged on appeal from the final order in the main procceeding. In this connection, it is noteworthy that when the present appellant took an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal from the order of the Controller no objection was raised that the order of the Rent Controller was not appealable, being a merely interlocutory order and not a final order. Had an objection been raised to the competency of the appeal, then the proceedings before the Rent Controller would have concluded long since and by now perhaps the final order would have been subjected to the appeals to which it would have been open and the controversy would have been finally settled by now. Unfortunately, as a result of want of objection by the respondent, the proceedings seem to have been slaved before the Rent Controller Indeed, in November, 1964, S.B Capoor J. stayed pronouncement of judgment by the Rent Controller till further orders and though this appeal was directed to be fixed at an early date, it has taken more than three years even from November, 1964 for this case to be set down tor hearing. The order of the Rent Control Tribunal seems to me prima facie to decide the question affecting rights of the parties. But even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is wide enough to justify interference even in respect of interlocutory orders which affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunals which are subject to this Court's power of superintendence provided the case is otherwise fit for interference under this constitutional power. On the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to me that. it is eminently a fit case for invoking this Courts power under Article 227 of the Constiution, for there is want of inherent jurisdiction in the Rent Controller to proceed with the fixation of rent at the instance of a person who has ceased to be a tenant. As a last resort, the respondent has raised an ingenious plea that the tenant was in any event entitled to apply for fixation of standard rent in respect of the period prior to the date of eviction order, though at the time of the application, he may not be considered, to be a tenant. It is, however, conceded that in the application itself the claim is not confined to any past period when the respondent was admittedly a tenant and the applicant asked for fixation of standard rent for all future times with restrospective effect. This point again was not canvassed either before the Controller or before the Rent Control Tribunal, with the result that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to entertain It. Reference to Rajinder Kumar v. Baheshar Nath,5 dealing with the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949 is of little consequence in the present case because the statute we are concerned with has been construed differently by the Supreme Court which is of direct application. In the reponed case, however, it is noteworthy that the decree for eviction was made on 30.11.1950 and the application for fixation of fair rent had been made on 2.1.1960 I am, however, not distinguishing that case on this circumstance.

11. For all the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds and allowing the same I set aside and quash the impugned orders and hold that the application for fixation of standard rent at the instance of the respondent was not competent in the Court of the Rent Controller and the same should, therefore, be dismissed. In the peculiar cercumstances of of the case, there will be no order as to costs in this Court.

12. Appeal allowed.