Textorium and Another vs K.A. John Victor and Another

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.—This revision is preferred against the order in I.A. 6449/2000 in R.C.P. 128 of 1999. Application for eviction was preferred by the landlord u/s 11(3) of the Act. Landlord preferred an application under Order 11, Rule 1 CPC for permission to serve interrogatories on Respondents 1 and 2 before the Rent Control Court. Application was resisted by the tenants on the ground that there is no provision in the Rent Control Act for permitting the landlord to serve interrogatories on the Respondents. Application was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Aggrieved by the same this revision petition has been preferred. When the matter came up for hearing Counsel for the Respondent--Landlord raised a preliminary objection that this revision is not maintainable since order passed by the Rent Control Court is not an original order revisable u/s 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965.

Counsel appearing for the tenant took up the stand that if he is compelled to answer interrogatories that would cause considerable prejudice to him landlord took us to the various decisions and also pointed out various categories of cases where appeal would lie before the Appellate Authority and also revision before this Court against the interim orders passed by the Rent Controller and cases where appeal and revision would not lie. We are of the view we need not dwell upon those contentions since Section 23 of the Act specifically confer powers on the Rent Control Court which are available to civil court in certain matters. Section 23 (1) (a) deals with discovery and inspection. Section 23 specifically states 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 when trying a suit in respect of discovery and inspection. Order 11 deals with discovery and inspection. Order 11, Rule 1 says that in any suit the Plaintiff or Defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer. The abovementioned provision would posititively show that in any suit the Plaintiff or Defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories. We are of the view the order passed by the Rent Controller is not liable to be revised in the revisional jurisdiction. We may however, indicate that if the revision Petitioner in any way aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller it is always open to him to challenge the same when the matter is finally heard and disposed of. Counsel for the landlord referred to the decisions reported in Thomas John v. Kochammini Amma 1991 (1) KLT 99, Sidharthan v. Hassankutty Haji 1994 (2) KLT 419, Ulahannan Kurian v. Ipe Thomas 1985 KLT 529, Samathi v. Devasan 1991 (1) KLT 453. Charulatha v. Manju 1994 (1) KLT 133: ILR 2001(3) Ker 573 , Counsel appearing for the tenant also referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nishi Prem Vs. Javed Akhtar and Others, as well as T.N. Habib Khan Vs. Arogya Mary Shanthi Lucien, . Reference was also made to the decision reported in Chander Bhan v. Lallu Singh AIR 1947 All 343 : KLT 99. Since we have held that the Rent Control Court has got the power to order serving of interrogatories we are not inclined to examine the maintainability or otherwise of the appeal or revision.

Under such circumstance we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Rent Controller which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

Revision lack? merits and the same is dismissed.