Only orders affecting the rights or liabilities of the parties are appealable under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and interlocutory orders pertaining to procedure or evidence are not appealable.

There is no merit in this original petition; nor for that matter. any bona fides.

2. A petition for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. (the Act in brief ) was filed against the petitioner in May 1985. The landlord who is a retired Army Officer. a disabled war hero of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war. claimed that he needed the building bona fide for his own occupation. Petitioner however contended that she was not the lessee. but her husband Ravindran. and since there was no landlord-tenant relationship between her and the owner of the building. the petition for eviction under the Act was not maintainable. Further. there was an agreement between her and the owner of the building. by which the latter had agreed to sell the building to her. and received an amount of. Rs.10.000/- as advance. Her possession was referable to this agreement. and not to any lease. The petition for eviction was liable to be rejected. as not maintainable on this ground as well.

3. Petitioner prayed that the point regarding maintainability of the petition may be decided as a preliminary issue. She filed a petition for the purpose. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application on December 7.1985 and declined to decide this question as a preliminary issue. Copy of that order is not produced. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal under S.18 of the Act. The order of the Appellate Authority is Ext.P4. Before the Appellate Authority. counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner had "no objection" to the appeal being dismissed with a direction to the Rent Control Court to consider the question whether the "denial of title" of the landlord by the petitioner. was bona fide. before going into "the other aspects" arising for consideration in the rent control petition. This submission made on behalf of the petitioner was accepted. and the appeal was dismissed with a direction to the Rent Control Court "to consider first at the trial" the question whether the denial by the petitioner of the title of the landlord was bona fide or not. This should normally have put an end to the appellate proceedings. but that was not to be.

4. Despite the concession made by her and the Appellate Authority's order Ext.P4.beingstrictlyin accord with that concession. the petitioner challenged that order in revision before the District Court under S.20 of the Act. The revision petition was disposed of by the order Ext.P5 after a lapse of nearly fourteen months. The revisional court dismissed the revision petition with compensatory costs, with a direction to the Rent Control Court to dispose of the matter after trial on merits on or before February 28.1989. The court noted that inspite of the concession made before the Appellate Authority. the petitioner chose to file the revision petition. and protracted the matter for a further period of fourteen months. The conduct of the petitioner required to be condemned; and the court could express its displeasure only by awarding compensatory costs of Rs.1.000/-.

5. The orders of the three authorities are challenged before me in this original petition under Art.227 of the Constitution.

6. I do not find any merit in this original petition. After having conceded and got the Appellate Authority to pass an order that the appeal may be dismissed with a direction to the Rent Control Court to consider the bona fides of the denial of title first at the trial. it did not lie with the petitioner to challenge that order in revision before the District Court. Evidently the petitioner's attempt was to protract the proceedings by some means or other. She succeeded in this attempt. as observed with anguish by the District Judge in the order Ext.P5. The matter was pending in the District Court for nearly fourteen months during which period the proceedings in the Rent Control Court stood stayed. The filing of the revision petition was clearly an abuse of the process of the court. intended. not for agitation of a