The bench comprising Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava considered a challenge to an order passed by the rent controller rejecting an application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act seeking recall of an ex-parte eviction order. The petitioner contended that the rejection order was amenable to appeal under Section 22 of the Act.

The court examined the language of Section 22 which provides a right of appeal against certain orders passed under the Act. It observed that the provision contemplates appeals only against final determinations affecting the substantive rights of the parties. The order rejecting a recall application, according to the bench, does not settle any substantive right but merely deals with a procedural step in the execution of an earlier ex-parte order.

Justice Srivastava noted that the power to pass an ex-parte eviction order under Section 21(1)(a) is exercised in a summary manner and the subsequent application for recall is likewise a procedural remedy intended to correct any irregularity in the ex-parte proceeding. The court held that such an order is referable to the procedural powers exercisable under the Act and therefore falls outside the ambit of Section 22.

The bench further explained that allowing an appeal at this stage would fragment the proceedings and cause unnecessary delay. It emphasized that the aggrieved party retains the option to seek relief through a fresh application for recall or to approach the rent controller for revision, rather than invoking the appellate remedy provided by Section 22.

In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on the principle that appellate jurisdiction under statutory schemes is confined to orders that finally determine a claim or liability. Since the order under consideration merely refused to recall an ex-parte direction and left the underlying eviction order intact, it did not meet the threshold of a final order for the purpose of Section 22.

The decision clarifies that tenants or landlords aggrieved by the rejection of a recall application must pursue alternative remedies within the rent controller’s jurisdiction. It also underscores the legislative intent to keep summary eviction proceedings expeditious by limiting interlocutory appeals.

The ruling has immediate effect on pending cases where parties have sought to challenge orders refusing recall of ex-parte eviction directions. It provides guidance to rent controllers and lower courts on the maintainability of appeals under Section 22 and reinforces the distinction between substantive and procedural orders in rent litigation under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act.