IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 125 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.27/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE, THRISSUR RCP.124/2006 OF RENT CONTROL CCOURT, THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN, KUTTAN'S PHARMACY, 10/1794, HIGH ROAD, TRICHUR. 2. SAROJINI RAGHAVAN, KUTTAN'S PHARMACY, 10/1794, HIGH ROAD, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT: APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ JOY JOSEPH, S/O.OUSEPH ALIAS JOSEPH, THARAYIL HOUSE, TRICHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 001, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT U.S.A. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 125 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing an appeal preferred by the landlord against order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the rent control petition for default. The rent control petition was instituted by the respondent landlord for evicting the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. The same stood posted for trial on 15th January 2009. On that day, an application for adjournment was filed by the landlord stating reasons. The Rent Control Court however, did not become inclined to grant adjournment. After calling the name of the landlord who was found absent, the rent control petition was dismissed. The landlord preferred an appeal to the Rent Control RCR. 125/11 -2- Appellate Authority and sought for an order of remand to the Rent Control Court, so that the disposal of the rent control petition can be facilitated on the merits of the contentions. The appeal was resisted by the revision petitioner contending that the same is not maintainable. It was urged that the remedy of a landlord whose rent control petition stands dismissed for default is to apply for restoration of the rent control petition and not to file a regular appeal. The learned Appellate Authority would notice the language of Section 18(1) of Act 2 of 1965 and hold that the appeal was maintainable in law. The learned Appellate Authority thereafter went on to consider the sufficiency of the cause shown by the landlord for not being present in the Rent Control Court on the fateful day when the RCP was dismissed for default. It was found that there was sufficient cause for the inability of the landlord to be present in the court on that day. It was found that the RCR. 125/11 -3- landlord's inability to be present in the Rent Control Court on the day the RCP was listed for trial was because he was away in USA undergoing treatment for heart disease at Duke Cardiology in Releigh, USA. It was also noticed that it was on the selfsame ground that the landlord had filed I.A. 9667 of 2008, an application for adjournment of the case after removing the same from the special list. Accordingly, allowing the appeal, the RCP was restored to file and the Rent Control Court was directed to dispose of the rent control petition within a time frame. 2. In this revision filed by the tenant various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner would argue mainly that the Rent Control Appellate Authority went wrong in holding that the appeal was maintainable in law. According to the learned senior counsel, before filing the appeal, the landlord should have RCR. 125/11 -4- exhausted the remedy under Order IX rule 9 C.P.C. Smt. Sumathi Dandapani would fortify her submissions by citing various precedents including a judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Saurashtra Chemicals, AIR 2004 Gujarat 83 and a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Shahida Beevi v. State of Kerala, 2008(1) KLT 206. Notwithstanding the very persuasive submissions of the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, we don't find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 about the view taken by the learned Appellate Authority regarding the maintainability of the appeal. It is Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965 which provides for appeals. Section 18(1) (b) provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Rent Control Court can prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction. Section 18(1)(b) has been judicially interpreted to include any order except RCR. 125/11 -5- interlocutory orders of a procedural nature which do not affect the rights of the parties finally and substantially. The order which was impugned before the Appellate Authority cannot be branded as an order which does not affect the right of the landlord finally. Unless the same is set aside it will pose an embargo to the landlord's right to evict his tenant. The learned Appellate Authority has rightly relied on judgment of this court in Kallianikutty Amma v. Velayudhan, 1975 KLT 600 and in Narayanan v. Shertallai Muttathu Pallikkariam, ILR 1970(2) Kerala 310 to take the view that the appeal is maintainable. We don't find any warrant for interference within the contours of Section 20. The RCR will stand dismissed in limine. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-