N P BALAKRISHNAN Vs. P M R MARIYUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question raised in this revision petition is whether a revision petition will lie under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court in CRP No. 2756 of 1994 held that no revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure will lie against the order of the Rent Control Court as it is a persona designata. Based upon the above decision, when the present revision petitioner filed this revision, office did not number the same. Another learned Single Judge of this Court directed the office to number the revision petition in view of the decision in Abdul Rehiman v. Hameed Hassan ( 1995 (2) KLT 794 ) wherein it was held that Rent Control Court is a Court and not a persona designata. Therefore, office numbered the same and in view of the conflicting views the matter was referred to the Division Bench.

(2.) Revision petitioner herein was the respondent in Rent Control Proceedings R.C.P. No. 111 of 1995 before the Rent Control-Court, Kannur. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent/landlord on the assumption that he is entitled to apply for eviction. Revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 265 of 1995 before the Munsiffs Court, Kannur. Respondent/landlord is the second defendant in the above suit. The contention in the above case was that the revision petitioner/tenant is not a tenant but he is the owner entitled to deal with the properties. Since the Rent Control Petition as well the suit, O.S. No. 265 of 1995, came before the same Munsiff, petitioner filed I.A. No. 2430 of 1996 in the RCP praying for joint trial of the Rent Control petition along with the suit. The Rent Control Court rejected the above application holding that such joint trial is improper. According to the Court, if a joint trial is ordered it virtually amounts to consolidation of the cases and only one judgment can be pronounced, but the Appellate Authorities are different. Accordingly the application for joint trial was rejected. While rejecting the application for joint Trial Court also referred to the decision of this Court in Kajaria Co. (P) Ltd. v. Vimala Bai ( 1967 KLT 575 ). It is contended by the revision petitioner that the above order is incorrect. It was held by this Court in Sumathi v. Devasan ( 1991 (1) KLT 453 ) that any order of whatever nature made by the Rent Control Court is not made appealable under S.18 merely because it is an order passed by the Rent Control Court. The expression "an order" cannot be construed as making each and every order, interlocutory or otherwise, appealable. It was also held that orders pertaining to matters merely of procedure are not appealable. Various earlier decisions were followed in the above case. Similar view was taken in the decision in Charulatha v. Manju ( 1994 (1) KLT 133 ). It was held in Narayanan v. Shertallai Muttathu Pallikariam ( ILR 1970 (2) Ker. 310 ) that an appeal under S.18(1) is not restricted to the final order passed in a case. It is submitted that since this is an order merely on procedure, an appeal will not lie and therefore, a revision petition under S.115 of the CPC alone will lie. S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that Rent Control Court is a 'Court' and when a non appealable order is passed by that Court, a revision petition under S.115 will lie. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopalan v. Aboobacker ( 1995 (2) KLT 205 ) wherein it was held that Rent Control Court is not a persona designata and it is a Court for the purpose of Limitation Act. It was held in the above case that the District Judge functioning as an Appellate Authority is not a 'persona designata' and even if concerned District Judge retires or gets transfer, otherwise ceases to hold the office of the District Judge, his successor in office can pick up the thread of the proceedings from the stage where it was left by his predecessor and can function as an Appellate Authority under S.18. Therefore, it is obvious that while adjudicating upon the dispute between the landlord and tenant and while deciding the question whether the Rent Control Court's order is justified or not such Appellate Authorities would be functioning as Courts. The above decision was followed in Abdul Rehiman v. Hameed Hassan Peruvad and Others (1995 (2) KLT 794 = 1995 (2) KLJ 435 ). In Gopalan's case, (1995 (2) KLT 205) it was held by the Supreme Court that application under S.29(2) of the Limitation Act applies to all courts where judicial functions are carried out and it need not necessarily be constituted under the CPC or a civil court. It was held that provisions of S.4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the Appellate Court constituted under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on a finding that the Appellate Authority constituted by S.18 of the Rent Control Act was not a 'persona designata'. Overruling the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Kerala in Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunhi Umma ( 1973 KLT 138 ) it was held by the Supreme Court that Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are not persona designata. The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Talkies Ltd., Kanpur v. Dwarka Prasad ( AIR 1961 SC 606 ) wherein Hidayatullah, J. observed as follows: