JOSE Vs. ACHAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions arise from R.C.P.No.29 of 2016 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kochi. The petitioners are the landlords in the proceedings and the respondent is the tenant.

(2.) The eviction petition was one instituted under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act). During the pendency of the eviction petition, the respondent preferred two interlocutory applications, I.A.No.3198 of 2017 seeking leave of the court to amend the counter statement filed by him in the eviction petition and I.A.No.3197 of 2017 seeking orders appointing an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain and report certain facts. The Rent Control Court dismissed the said interlocutory applications. The dismissal of the interlocutory applications were challenged by the respondent before this Court in O.P.(RC) No.207 of 2017.

(3.) It is seen that when the above original petition came up for hearing, the petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the original petition is not maintainable as the orders sought to be set aside are appealable under Sec. 18 of the Act. This Court accepted the said contention of the petitioners and disposed of the original petition with liberty to the respondent to institute appeals under Sec. 18 of the Act against the orders impugned in the original petition. Pursuant to the decision in the said case, the respondent challenged the orders impugned in the original petition in two separate appeals namely, R.C.A.No.24 of 2018 and R.C.A.No.25 of 2018 before the Appellate Authority, and in terms of the common judgment rendered in the said appeals, the Appellate Authority set aside the impugned orders and allowed the interlocutory applications. As far as I.A.No.3198 of 2017 is concerned, it was directed by the Appellate Authority that the respondent shall carry out the amendment in his counter statement and the petitioners will be at liberty to file additional pleadings in the light of the amendment brought in. As far as I.A.No.3197 of 2017 is concerned, the Appellate Authority directed the Rent Control Court to depute the Advocate Commissioner earlier appointed in the proceedings to conduct local inspection. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said decisions of the Appellate Authority and hence, these revisions.