RAJENDRAN Vs. AKKAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Orders dated 9.7.2014 made in I.A. Nos. 19 & 20 of 2014 in R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 2007 passed by the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur. The Tenant is a Revision Petitioner in the Rent Control proceedings. The Applications were filed by the Tenant to reopen the Respondent's side evidence and to recall P.W. 1 for further cross-examination. The said Applications were dismissed, against which, these Revisions are filed.

(2.) In a Rent Control proceedings, where it is filed for eviction, any Interlocutory Application may be filed. However, the Orders passed in such Interlocutory Application, unless it affects the rights and liabilities of the parties in the main Petition, are not appealable, much less a Revision is not maintainable against the same. Even assuming that the Petitioner is entitled to challenge the Order impugned, he should have only filed an Appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and should not have moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Any Order, passed by the Rent Controller in an Interlocutory Application, which does not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties, cannot be challenged. By rejecting an Interlocutory Application, no finality is reached in the main Original Petition. The rejection of the Petition to reopen and recall does not affect the rights of the parties.

(3.) This has been set out in the earlier decision of this Court also, in V. Govindarajulu v. T. Govindarajulu, 1989 1 MadLJ 482, has held as follows: