The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rent Control Court is not a Civil Court for the purpose of the provisions of S.115 of the CPC.

Koshy, J.

The important question raised in this revision petition is whether a revision petition will lie under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court. A learned Single judge of this Court in CRP No. 2756 of 1994 held that no revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure will lie against the order of the Rent Control Court as it is a persona designata. Based upon the above decision, when the present revision petitioner tiled this revision, office did not number the same. Another learned Stigler Judge of this Court directed the office to number the revision petition in view of the decision in Abdul Rehiman v. Hameed Hassan (1995 (2) KLT 794) wherein it was held that Rent Control Court is a Court and not a persona designata. Therefore, office numbered the same and in view of the conflicting views the matter was referred to the Division Bench.

2. Revision petitioner herein was the respondent in Rent Control Proceedings R.C.P. No. 111 of 1995 before the Rent Control Court, Kannur. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent/ landlord on the assumption that he is entitled to apply for eviction. Revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 265 of 1995 before the Munsiffs Court, Kannur. Respondent/ landlord is the second defendant in the above suit. The contention in the above case was that the revision petitioner/ tenant is not a tenant but he is the owner entitled to deal with the properties. Since the Rent Control Petition as well the suit, O.S. No. 265 of 1995, came before the same Munsiff, petitioner filed I. A. No. 2430 of 1996 in the RCP praying for joint trial of the Rent Control petition along with the suit. The Rent Control Court rejected the above application holding that such joint trial is improper. According to the Court, if a joint trial is ordered it virtually amounts to consolidation of the cases and only one judgment can be pronounced, but the appellate Authorities are different. Accordingly the application for joint trial was rejected. While rejecting the application for joint trial court also referred to the decision of this Court in Kajaria Co. (P) Ltd. v.. Vimala Bai (1967 KLT 575). It is contended by the revision petitioner that the above order is incorrect. It. was held by this Court in Sumathi v. Devasan (1991 (1) KLT 453) that any order of whatever nature made by the Rent Control Court is not made appealable under S.18 merely because it is an order passed by the Rent Control Court. The expression "an order" cannot be construed as making each and every order, interlocutory or otherwise, appealable. It was also held that orders pertaining to matters merely of procedure are not appealable. Various earlier decisions were followed in the above case. Similar view was taken in the decision in Charulatha v. Manju (1994 (1) KLT 133). It was held in Narayanan v. Shertallai Miittathu Pallikariam (ILR 1970(2) Ker. 310) that an appeal under S.18(1) is not restricted to the final order passed in a case. It is submitted that since this is an order merely on procedure, an appeal will not lie and therefore, a revision petition under S.115 of the CPC alone will lie. S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

"115. Revision:- (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears -

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall not, under tin's section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where -

(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for re