IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22337 of 2010(N) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 1702/2010 IN RCP.27/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VALIYAKATHU ABDUL AZAD, S/O.RAYINKUTTY, TIRUR TALUK, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, CHERIYAMUNDAM P.O., PIN-676 101. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KONDACHAN ABDU RAHMAN HAJI, S/O.MUHAMMED, TIRUR TALUK, THRIKKANDIYUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHERIYAMUNDAM, PIN-676 101. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-7-2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 22337 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The grievance voiced by the writ petitioner, a tenant who is facing eviction proceedings before the Rent Control Court, Tirur in RCP. No.27 of 2009 is that the Rent Control Court dismissed IA. No. 1702 of 2010 and has not granted even breathing time to him for challenging the order in that IA. The dispute pertains to Ext.P2 lease agreement relied on by the petitioner tenant. The respondent landlord disputed the existence of P2. According to the respondent, it is another lease deed which governs the lease. In the first instance, the petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for directing the respondent to produce the original of P2. To that application, the respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that he does not have custody of the original and that P2 is not a genuine lease deed. That WP(C). 22337/10 -2- IA was closed by the learned Rent Control Court on that basis. Thereupon the petitioner filed the present IA requesting that the original of Ext.P2 (which was marked as Ext.B1 in the case) be referred to an expert for getting a report as to the genuineness of the various signatures of the respondent on the same after comparing the same with the admitted signatures of the respondent. Petitioner submits that the application was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Court and the court has posted the RCP for final hearing. 2. Obviously both sides have adduced evidence in the rent control petition. IA. No. 1702 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner for collecting further evidence on his side. It may be true that the petitioner has a grievance about the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the above IA. However, the order dismissing the above IA is only an interlocutory order of a procedural nature which in our WP(C). 22337/10 -3- opinion does not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties materially. We do not think that a regular appeal under Section 18 will lie against the above order. It is always open to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the above order in the appeal which the petitioner may have to file against the final order to be passed in the rent control petition (if that order comes to be against the petitioner). Giving that liberty to the petitioner (liberty to raise grounds impugning the order in IA. No. 1702 of 2010 also) in the prospective appeal which the petitioner may file, we dispose of the writ petition without granting reliefs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-