The main legal point established in the judgment is that under S.18 of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965, an appeal lies against any order of the Rent Controller, provided it is not an interlocutory order that is merely procedural and does not affect the rights or liabilities of any party.

Bhat,J.

Revision petitioner is the second respondent in RCP 5 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, filed by the land-lords for eviction of the tenant as well as the alleged sub-tenant (revision petitioner) under the provisions of S.11 of Kerala Act 2 of 1965. Along with the eviction petition, the landlords applied for issue of a Commission and a Commissioner was appointed ex-parte. The Commissioner submitted , a report. It is pointed out that the revision petitioner was present when the Commissioner ! inspected the premises. The report was filed in 1986. Four years later, the revision petitioner filed LA 1313 of 1990 to set aside the report dated 22-2-1986 and to appoint a fresh Commissioner to undertake the work with the assistance of an expert engineer. The petition was opposed by the land-lords and dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that there was no reason to set aside the report and that the petition was highly, belated and devoid of bonafides. Revision petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate j authority challenging the above order. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal I on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. The appellate authority, however, observed that "it is open to the appellant or the parties aggrieved by such interlocutory orders to canvass the error, defect or irregularity, if any, in the order in an appeal from the final order passed in

the proceeding for eviction." This order is now challenged in this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that under S.18 of the Act an appeal lies against any order which may be passed by the Rent Controller and, therefore, the appeal is maintainable and the appellate authority was in error in dismissing the appeal. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought to distinguish the decision in Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand (AIR 1967 SC 799) which was relied on by the appellate authority to hold that the appeal was not maintain' able.

3. In the above decision, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the provisions of S.38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which reads as follows:

"An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act to the Rent Control Tribunal consisting of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government notification in the Official Gazette."

In that case an application for issue of Commission was filed initially and dismissed Thereafter a second application was filed and that also was dismissed. The order dismissing the second application was challenged before the appellate authority which held that the appeal was not maintainable under S.38(1) of the Act. It was argued before the Supreme Court that in terms of S.38(1) an appeal lay against any order passed by the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court repelled this contention in the following manner:

"The object of S.38(1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. In the context of S.38(1), the words' every order of the Controller made under this Act', though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. In a pending proceeding, the Controller may pass many interlocutory orders under Ss.36 and 37, such as orders regarding the 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 the admissibility of a document or the relevancy of a question. All these interlocutory orders are 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 del