IMPORTANT POINT
The phraseology employed in Section 18 of the BRC Act “that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court may file an appeal” will have to be understood as orders which substantially affect the rights of the parties

JUDGMENT :

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

Similar questions are raised in these original petitions. We, therefore, heard the petitions together. Orders impugned in both these petitions are marked as Ext.P4. Ext.P4 orders were passed by the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, on separate applications filed by the petitioners for remitting the report and sketch submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed for conducting local inspection. Request made by the petitioners for remittal of the Commissioner's report and sketch was declined and hence, they are before this Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.

3. Respondents in both these original petitions are the same landlords, who filed applications for eviction of the tenants/petitioners. They claimed eviction on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation referable to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965(for short, 'the BRC Act'). Ext.P2 in each case is the report and sketch submitted by the Commissioner. Ext.P3 is the application filed by the petitioners in each case for remitting the Commissioner's sketch and report.

4. After hearing the rival contentions, the impugned order was passed by the Rent Control Court finding that the petitioners failed to specifically aver as to which aspect in the report and sketch was unclear. Therefore, the court below, holding a view that the petitioners could lead evidence to substantiate their contentions, found that a remittal of the Commissioner's report was unwarranted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below thoroughly went wrong in not appreciating the contentions of the tenants. According to them, the building is situated in a locality where there is no proper access to take vehicles in order to run a godown. It is also pointed out, referring to Ext.P2 sketch, that only a narrow passageway (alley) is available on the eastern side of the property where the building is situated. Similarly, on the north also, there is only an alley. Petitioners contended that on this score alone it can be seen that the respondents' claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide need to run a godown is a ruse to evict the tenants. Petitioners would further contend that the alleys on the north and east are too narrow to allow vehicular access to the property. This is a valid reason to suspect the bona fides of the need urged by the landlords. In answer to this contention, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords submitted that the building has direct access from the main road running through the south. On a perusal of the Commissioner's report and sketch, it can be seen that the Commissioner has not mentioned anything about the width of the alley or the availability of direct access to the petition schedule building from the public road running through the south of the property. The availability of a direct vehicular access to the petition schedule building is an aspect having a bearing on the contentions raised by the landlords. The court below should have permitted remittal of the Commissioner's report only to note this point.

6. Pertinent legal question arising in this context is whether an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be maintained before this Court in the light of Section 18 of the BRC Act. The provision reads thus:

“18. Appeal.-(1)(a) The Government may, by general or special order notified in the Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities not below the rank of a subordinate Judge the power of appellate authorities for the purpose of this Act in such areas or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.

(b) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. In computing the thirty days aforesaid, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be