Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, quite in extenso.
2. The original petition arises from a Rent Control Petition instituted way back in 1999 on a ground for bona fide need to occupy a shop room. The application was made by a person then aged 29 years. The tenant sought to be evicted was then 80 years old. With passage of time, we see from the affidavit of the tenant that now he is 94 years old. Obviously, the landlord could not have also prevented himself from growing up.
3. The original petition is filed challenging an order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority refusing to remit the Commissioner's report obtained during the course of the appeal.
4. The Rent Control Petition of 1999 went against the tenant.
The tenant carried an appeal in 2000. That was allowed. The landlord carried it in revision to this Court. In R.C.R.No.56 of 2010, this Court remitted the case to the Appellate Authority requiring it to consider different aspects as reflected in the order of remit. The appellate authority thereupon issued a commission for local inspection. That led to a commissioner's report which dealt with the nature and use of certain other rooms belonged to the landlord and also certain other details as to the manner in which those rooms have been put to use. That is a disputed fact in appeal. The tenant wanted that Commissioner's report be remitted to the Commissioner. The Rent Control Appellate Authority noted that those being disputed facts and the Commissioner's report being relevant only for certain aspects of the matter, it would always be open to anyone impeaching that report to adduce evidence and dislodge the contents of the report to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority. That is how the order impeached herein was issued. We may recall that in terms of Section 18 of the Act 2 of 1965, the Appellate Authority's jurisdiction is as if it is a first court of appeal and therefore, for all intents and purposes, coextensive with that of the Rent Control Court in the matter of appreciating evidence and deciding the case in terms of justice, equity and good conscience which is a mandate even as per the Rent Control Rules. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellate Authority cannot be faulted on any ground of jurisdiction or illegality to visit its interlocutory order in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court does not call for interference with the impugned order. This original petition, therefore, fails, however, preserving all contentions as would be available before the Appellate Authority at final hearing of the appeal.
5. Before parting, we think that the counsel should convey and the parties should agree to go for mediation in terms of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in AFCON's case. That mandate can be extended to such jurisdictions and the consent of parties may not be necessary at the first instance to make an order of reference though mediation settlement comes only on consent of parties. It would also be possible for the learned Judge to persuade the parties to take recourse to Alternative Dispute Resolution for peaceful resolution of further litigation. We, therefore, request the learned Appellate Authority to refer this case to the appropriate Mediation Centre, preferably, in the District Mediation Centre, Kasaragod.
6. We also record the submission on behalf of the landlord that there is undue delay in the career graph of this litigation. We leave it open to the landlord to move an application before the Appellate Authority for expeditious disposal of the matter, finally.
In the result, this original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG