Point of Law : 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.

ORDER :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

The tenant in R.C.P.No.28 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner in these revision petitions. The respondent is the landlord.

2. The rent control petition was filed seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 11(4)(i) and 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the rent control petition, initially, only shop room No.8 situated in front of the Indoor Stadium, Ernakulam was mentioned. Subsequently, on noticing the mistake, the landlord filed I.A.No.4 of 2021 under Section 151 of the Civil procedure Code read with Section 23(j) of the Act, seeking to substitute the expression 'room no.7 & 8' for 'room no.8' in the rent control petition. The tenant filed objection contending that the schedule of the rent control petition is silent about shop room No.8 and that the first prayer and the schedule in the rent control petition are not tallying. The said IA was allowed. Subsequently, the landlord filed another petition as IA No.8 of 2021 for correcting the mistake, which was also objected to by the tenant. The Rent Control Court allowed the said IA also. Challenging the orders in IA Nos.4 and 8 of 2021 in RCP No.28 of 2016, the tenant filed appeals as RCA Nos.20 and 21 of 2021. The case of the tenant was that the orders were void and made in violation of the principles of justice and the said orders are not interlocutory orders as they determine and adjudicate the rights of the tenant and hence, are appealable under Section 18 of the Act. The appellate court raised a doubt regarding the maintainability of the appeals and on hearing the tenant and the landlord, it was held that the impugned orders are not appealable since the court below has not finally adjudicated the issue and accordingly, the appeals are dismissed by a common judgment. Challenging the impugned judgment, the tenant has come up in revision.

3. We have heard Sri. K. Ramkumar, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant, assisted by Sri. T. Ramprasad Unni; and Sri. A. Balagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

4. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant submits that in Section 18 of the Act, it is not mentioned anywhere that an order of interlocutory nature is not appealable, which is significantly present in a number of similar appellate provisions such as the Family Court Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further argued that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to introduce a new word in a statute as it will amount to legislating and not interpreting a statute. The learned senior counsel further argued that the impugned orders affect the rights of the revision petitioner being the tenant of the building, which will be a serious violation to legal right and it completely alters the cause of action.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord submitted that the trial of the rent control petition has not yet started and it was before the pre-trial stage that the correction was carried out and the revision petitioner/tenant has got ample time to controvert the effect of corrections made in the rent control petition. It was further contended that these orders are only interlocutory orders, which will not affect the rights of the tenant and it can be agitated during trial.

6. For a proper appreciation of the case, it is relevant to extract Section 23(1) of the Act, which reads thus:-

“23. Summons etc. - (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court, and the appellate authority shall have the powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(V of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:-

(a) discovery and inspection;

(b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and requiring the deposits of their expenses;

(c) compelling the production of documents;

(d) examining witn