IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22113 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------- RCP.5/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SADASIVAN MANGALAN, KAIPALLI VEEDU, KADAKKAVOOR,PROPRIETOR, ATTINGAL GOURIST HOME, NEAR ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, ATTINGAL VILLAGE. 2. KADAKKAVOOR S.S.SURESH, ADVOCATE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RIJU MUKUNTHAN, THEVARATHOPPU VEEDU, NEAR T.B.JUNCTION, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERRY VILLAGE, ATTINGAL, PIN 695103. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 22113 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the tenant who is facing eviction proceedings on the files of Rent Control Court, Attingal as RCP. No. 5 of 2009 is Ext.P4 order. It is submitted by Sri. S.Jiji, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that by Ext.P4 order the learned Rent Control Court has turned down the petitioner's plea of denial of the landlord's title. Answering a query put by us he submitted that if the order in IA. No. 156 of 2010 in which Ext.P4 is now passed, was in favour of the petitioner, then the rent control petition would have been closed and parties would have been relegated by the Rent Control Court to the civil court for relief. We accept the submission of Mr.Jiji. We are of the view that Ext.P4, in so far as the same decides the question whether the denial WP(C). 22113 of 2010 -2- of title raised by the petitioner tenant is bona fide or not and the question of establishment of landlord tenant relationship between the parties cannot be branded as a procedural order which does not affect the rights of parties. Hence, in our view, Ext.P4 order is appealable under Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965. We leave open that remedy to the petitioner. We dispose of the writ petition without examining the merits of the grounds. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-