Tenant filing petition to reopen the case.

ORDER :- This revision is sought to be filed by the tenant in H. R. C. O. P. 16 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Tiruvannamalai, against the order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing M.P. 9/82 filed by him for reopening the case for the purpose of examining the petitioner's witness viz., the previous landlord's son Sri Mohan Kumar for proving the regular payment of rent.

2. It transpires from the impugned order that after examination of the witness on the side of the landlord, the case stood posted on 15-3-1982 and thereafter on 13-4-1982 on which date the tenant represented that ho had no witness to be examined on his side. Then the case stood posted at the request of both the parties, to 22-4-1982 for arguments, on which date the petitioner took out an application with an affidavit that he intended to examine a witness on his side. But, he has not given either the name of the witness to be examined on his side or the reasons for such intended examination. It was under these circumstances the Court dismissed the petition holding that the present application had been taken by the petitioner for the purpose of dragging the main proceedings, Hence this revision.

3. The office of the High Court has returned this petition requesting the Counsel to state how the revision would be maintainable under S.115, C. P. C., without exhausting the remedy of an appeal provided under the Tamil Nadu Buildings and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The papers were represented by the Counsel stating that as there is conflict of opinion as to the maintainability of a civil revision petition under the Act, and as this Court has held that the Rent Controller is also a Civil Court, this revision is competent under Section 115, C. P. C. In support of this contention, he relies on the decision of this Court in E.K. Venkai Morban v. Dakshinamurthy (198194 Mad LW 243).

4. The question that arises for my consideration is whether this revision is maintainable.

5. Section 115 (2), C. P. C., enacts that the High Court shall not under this provision vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. In the present proceedings, the Act provides for an appeal by any person aggrieved by an order passed, by the Rent Controller. Now I shall refer to some of the decisions before adverting to the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A question arose before the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Gokalchand (AIR 1967 SC 799), whether an appeal would lie against an order passed in an interlocutory application.

In that case, the Supreme Court observed that the words "every order" occurring in S.38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, passed by the Rent Controller, though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties and in a pending proceeding the Controller may pass many interlocutory orders 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 relevance of a question, and that 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 fight or liability of the parties.

It has been further observed therein that the legislature could not have intended that the parties would be harassed with the endless expenses and delay by appeals from such procedural orders and that it is open to any party to set forth the error, defect or irregularity, if any, in such an order as the ground of objection in his appeal from the final order in the main procee