YAGAMMAL Vs. M D JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is the tenant in r. C. O. P. No. 57 of 1989 in the Court of Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, ponneri. THE landlord filed that application under Secs. 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (vii)of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction on the ground of wilful default and denial of title. THE petitioner/ tenant resisted the action disputing the landlord-tenant relationship between them. It appears that during enquiry after the examination of the landlord in chief and he was about to be cross-examined, the tenant came forward with an application for receiving an additional counter. After contest the court gave her the necessary permission and the counter was received. THEreafter, the landlord filed. M. P. No. 84 of 1993 under O. 18, Rule 17, C. P. C. seeking permission to recall him for giving further evidence alleging that he was cross-examined on certain new plea taken in the additional counter and so he has to be recalled to produce certain documents and give further evidence. This was contested and the learned rent Controller in his order dated 16. 2,1994 allowed the application. And this order is assailed by the tenant in this civil revision petition.

(2.) THE grievance of the revision petitioner is that even though opportunity was given to the landlord after filing of the additional counter, he did not avail of the same deliberately and his recalling now would enable him to raise a new plea. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that the landlord has not even stated what are the documents he would like to produce in court. However, when questioned how the provisions of art. 227 of the Constitution of India could be invoked in a case like this, when sec. 23 (l) (b) of Act 18 of 1960 provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment of ratnavel Pandian, J. (as he then was) in Chinnaraju Naidu v. Bavani Bai, (1981)2 M. L. J. 354. THEre, His Lordship had held that an order in an interlocutory application permitting the landlord to correct the door number of the premises in question, is only procedural in character and cannot be said to be final order coming within the definition of an'order' occurring in Sec. 23 (1) (b) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. And all interlocutory orders passed during the proceedings under the Act cannot be said to be orders coming within the meaning of Sec. 23 (1) (b) of the Act. Only the orders that affect the rights and liabilities of the parties in the sense that they become final orders though passed on interlocutory application, such as refusing to set aside ex parte order etc. are appealable. So, it is evident that the impugned order is not an appealable one under Sec. 23 (l) (b) of the Act. However, his Lordship, has pointed out in the course of the said decision that if every order passed on an interlocutory application, which in no way finally affects the right or liability of any party, and which is purely of procedural character, is permitted to be appealed against, then the litigation will become a long-drawn out affair causing unnecessary prolonged delay in the disposal of the rent control cases. In fact, Sec. 23 (l) (b) of the Act postulates that the person aggrieved by an order by the Controller may prefer an appeal. But, the section does not read that an appeal should lie against'every order'passed by the Controller. Following the decision of the Supreme court in Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand, A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 799. His lordship has held that orders such as summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of-witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and admissibility of document or the relevancy of a question are all steps taken towards the final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceeding. THEy regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties. THE legislature could not have intended that the parties would be harassed with endless expenses and delay by appeals from such procedural orders. It is open to any party to set forth the error, defect or irregularity, if any, in such an order as a ground of objection in his appeal from the final order in the main proceeding. And the purpose of putting a bar on the powers of appeal or revision, as the case may be in relation to any interlocutory order passed in proceedings like the Rent control matters, which is not a final order affecting the right and liability of any party, is to bring about an expeditious final disposal of the case lest in which give room for a long-drawn affair delaying the disposal of such cases. Considering the object of the enactment as pointed out above, there is no scope for invoking Art. 227 of the Constitution of India in the present case for the simple reason that no appeal or revision is available against the impugned order under Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed before me any other authority to take a different view. And certainly it is open to the revision petitioner to set forth the error, defect or irregularity, if any, in the impugned order as a ground of objection in his appeal from the final order in the main proceedings.