Appeal and revision held as not maintainable.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. This revision is directed by the tenant, against the order passed by the appellate authority, Coimbatore, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller.

2. The facts which arc necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows:

The respondent (landlord) filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner herein (tenant) on the grounds of wilful default payment of rent and bona fide, requirement of the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. He also filed an application, I.A. No. 147 of 1987 under Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as amended, to appoint a Commissioner to examine the respondent at his residence contending that he suffered paralytic stroke and as such he is incapacitated for more than four years, that he is unable to move about from the house and that he cannot appear in court and depose in the case. The said application is resisted by the petitioner herein who would contend that the said allegation that the respondent is incapacitated is false.... He would further state that the respondent had mild stroke about four years ago and he recovered within a month. The respondent can walk without the help of others, and that he even now comes out with a walking stick and his normal faculties are not in any way affected. It was further averred that the respondent can come to court in some vehicle, sit in a chair and give evidence.

3. The said application was allowed by the Rent Controller and a Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of the respondent at his house. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and he was not successful and hence this revision petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that no appeal will lie against the order passed in an interlocutory application and that the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground of maintainability of the appeal is not sustainable, both in law and on facts. He would further urge that by appointing a Commissioner to examine the respondent (landlord) the Rent Controller is losing a chance of noting the demeanour of the witness and that the petitioner's valuable opportunity of cross examining the witness has been taken away. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in Habib Khan v. Arogyamany Shanthi Lucine, wherein it was held that the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of admissibility of the document in question was an appealable one since it affects the rights and liabilities of the aggrieved party. That was a case where the Rent Controller in, an eviction application admitted the unstamped and unregistered documents in evidenced after overlooking the tenant's objection as to the inadmissibility of the documents for want of stamp and registration and it was held that since the said order affects the rights and liabilities of the party, an appeal under Section 23(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is maintainable.

5. On the other hand, my attention was drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Gokalchand (1967)2 S.C.J. 828 : where their Lordships of the Supreme Court, dealing with the Delhi Rent Control Act, observed:

The object of Section 38(1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. In the context of Section 38(1), the words 'every order of the Controller made under this Act' though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. In a pending proceeding the Controller may pass, many interlocutory orders under Section 36 and 37 such as orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery production and insp