C.V. Rajalakshmi vs Shylaja Nair & Ors.

Soumen Sen, C.J.

The appeal preferred against the order dismissing the application for setting aside the Commissioner’s report was dismissed on the ground that the said order had not substantially decided the issue and, therefore, was not appealable under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, relying on the decisions in Sathyasheelan and others v. Chengote Abdul Samad and others^{11.2021 (1) KHC 629} and Thomas John v. Kochammini Amma and others^{22.1990 ICO 1911}, without entering into the merits of the report filed by the Commissioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acceptance of the Commissioner’s report by the Trial Court has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner’s rights and contentions. We find that the petition is at the stage of final hearing in the eviction proceedings. Objections regarding the acceptance of the Commissioner’s report, and the reliance placed upon the said report in the final order, are likely to cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.

In the event the learned Judge of the Rent Control Court fails to decide the said issue or relies upon the said report against the petitioner while disposing of the Rent Control Petition, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the acceptance of the Commissioner’s report in appeal, if the said report has gone to the basis of the order of eviction. The order of the appellate court shall not stand in the way of the petitioner raising objections with regard to the acceptance of the Commissioner’s report before the appellate court, as the appellate court declined to entertain the appeal solely on the ground that the said order is not appealable.

In view of the nature of the aforesaid order, we are of the view that no notice is required to be served on the respondents. The Rent Control Revision stands disposed of.