THOMOS JOHN Vs. P KOCHAMMINI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the second respondent in RCP 5 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenant as well as the alleged sub-tenant (revision petitioner) under the provisions of S. 11 of Kerala Act, 2 of 1965. Along with the eviction petition, the landlords applied for issue of a commission and a Commissioner was appointed ex parte. The Commissioner submitted a report. It is pointed out that the revision petitioner was present when the Commissioner inspected the premises. The report was filed in 1986. Four years later, the revision petitioner filed I.A. 1313 of 1990 to set aside the report dated 22-2-1986 and to appoint a fresh Commissioner to undertake the work with the assistance of an expert engineer. The petition was opposed by the landlords and dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that there was no reason to set aside the report and that the petition was highly belated and devoid of bona fides. Revision petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority challenging the above order. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. The appellate authority, however, observed that "it is open to the appellant or the parties aggrieved by such interlocutory orders to canvass the error, defect or irregularity, if any, in the order in an appeal from the final order passed in the proceeding for eviction". This order is now challenged in this revision.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that under S. 18 of the Act an appeal lies against any order which may be passed by the Rent Controller and, therefore, the appeal is maintainable and the appellate authority was in error in dismissing the appeal. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner sought to distinguish the decision in Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand (AIR 1967 SC 799) which was relied on by the appellate authority to hold that the appeal was not maintainable.

(3.) In the above decision, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the provisions of S. 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which reads as follows :