1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.S.A. 1/2009 DEVRAJ MASON Appellant Through Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Adv. versus SHANTI DEVI Respondent Through Mr.S.K.Sharma with Mr.Dhruv Kumra & Mr.Anoop Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL ORDER % 25.05.2009 Present is an appeal under Section 39 of Delhi Rent Control i Act, 1958 for setting aside/quashing of impugned order dated October, 1999 passed by the Ld. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. At the outset, Ld. counsel for caveator has questioned the maintainability of the appeal. It is submitted that as a result of amendment in 1988 in Delhi Rent Control Act, the provision for second appeal has been done away. The only remedy available with the appellant was to file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order. It is submitted that appellant had already availed the said remedy, as such nothing survives in the matter. I In support of above submission, learned counsel has Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 4- relied upon Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. 2001 (Suppl.2) SC 205, the relevant para of which is as under; - "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The second appeal having been done away with, the only remedy, if any, which would be available to the present, aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal was to file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That is why it was done in the present case. The High Court ought to have entertained the petition filed under Article 227 of the f Constitution." Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the aforesaid judgment has submitted that the present second appeal may be converted to a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that if same cannot be done, in that event appellant may be allowed to apply for recalling/revival of CM(M) 665/1999 which was initially dismissed vide orders dated 10^^ November, 2008 and thereafter on the apphcation of appellant i.e lA No.16318/2008, vide orders dated 2V' April, 2009, appellant was allowed to withdraw the same. Since appellant has earlier filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being CM(M) 665/1999, challenging the impugned order, present appeal cannot be converted to a petition under Airticle227 of Constitution of India. It is admitted position that the order under challenge was passed after coming into force of amendment of Delhi Rent Control Act in 1988. The present appeal therefore, stands dismissed as not maintainable. As regards liberty prayed is concerned, appellant may approach the concerned court for recalling/revival of the order dated 10*^^ November, 2008 in accordance with law. It is for the said court to look into maintainability of any such application, if moved. It is clarified that no opinion is expressed by this court about maintainability of any such application. Learned counsel for respondent has assured that respondent shall not press execution before the trial court for three weeks from today. Order Dastixtt^ VEENA BIRBAL, J MAY 25, 2009 ssb/kks