AGRAWAL, CJ. ( 1 ) THE principal question that falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the appeal filed under S. 13 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act for short 'the Act') against the order of the House Rent Controller refusing to decide the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue was maintainable or not. ( 2 ) THE scope of S. 13 of the Act and its correct interpretation with respect to the maintainability of appeals were raised from time to time, and, in order to decide it authoritatively, O. J. C. No. 840 of 1981 was referred to a larger Bench. Accordingly, when this case was listed before a Division Bench, it was also ordered to be heard along with the aforesaid writ application. The question has been discussed in extenso in the judgment of that case, which has been delivered just now. The ratio of the decision in that case fully applies to this case also. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief : the petitioner filed a case for eviction of O. P. 1 from the premises in question before the House Rent Controller, inter alia, on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement. Several pleas of defence including the plea of res judicata were raised by O. P. 1 in the written statement. It is, however, not necessary to dilate on any of the pleas. On 5-9-1985, O. P. 1 made an application before the Controller to decide the plea of res judicata as a preliminary issue. The Controller, by his order (Annexure-1), rejected the prayer although some observations on the merits of the plea were also made the tenant took the matter in appeal before the appellate authority who, instead of deciding as to whether the plea of res judicata should have been decided as a preliminary issue or not, himself went into the merits of that issue. Discussing the facts elaborately, he held that the finding in an earlier House Rent Control case that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties operated as res judicata and the parties were bound by the same. Therefore, the eviction application before the Controller was not maintainable. He accordingly allowed the appeal and not only set aside the order of the Controller, but also dismissed the main application for eviction. Therefore, the eviction application before the Controller was not maintainable. He accordingly allowed the appeal and not only set aside the order of the Controller, but also dismissed the main application for eviction. The landlord has therefore come to this Court. ( 4 ) SEVERAL questions were raised on behalf of the petitioner, namely, (1) the appeal itself was not maintainable within the four corners of Section 13 of the Act ; (2) the plea of res judicata being a mixed question of law and fact should not be decided as a preliminary issue; and (3) at best the appellate authority could have directed the Controller to decide the question as a preliminary issue instead of taking upon himself the responsibility of deciding the issue on merits. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the case must succeed on the first point itself, namely, that the appeal was not maintainable, which I shall presently elaborate, I would like to observe for the future guidance of the courts below that the trial court having simply refused to decide the question as a preliminary issue, the appellate authority, if he took a contrary view, should have directed the Controller to decide it preliminarily, and not to have undertaken the task himself. The procedure adopted by the appellate authority is not only improper, but it has also caused prejudice to the parties, who might have adduced some evidence in support of their respective stand before the Controller. In that event, the appellate authority would have been in a better position to appreciate the same. ( 6 ) COMING to the main question, in O. J. C. No. 840/81, we have interpreted the correct scope of S. 13 and have held that this section gives right of appeal to the aggrieved party against all such orders which affects his right or liability. In a pending proceeding, the Controller might pass many interlocutory orders, such as, summoning witnesses, rejecting the petition for time, for inspection of documents, issue of commission, and the like. All these interlocutory orders are simply steps taken towards the final adjudication assisting the parties in the prosecution of their respective cases. Such orders do not affect the right or liability of the parties and, therefore, are not appealable. All these interlocutory orders are simply steps taken towards the final adjudication assisting the parties in the prosecution of their respective cases. Such orders do not affect the right or liability of the parties and, therefore, are not appealable. For this view, we have derived support from a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799 . Mr. P. K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has brought to our notice another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bant Singh Gill v. Shanti Devi, AIR 1967 SC 1360 . That was a suit for eviction under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, in which a question of abatement of the proceeding under S. 50 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was raised. The trial court took the view that the suit had not abated. On the question as to whether an appeal would lie against that order, following Central Bank's case (supra), it was held that the decision of the trial court was only in the nature of a finding on a preliminary issue on which the maintainability of the suit depended and that the finding could not be held to be an order for the purpose of S. 34 of the 1952 Act. Consequently, no appeal against such order was maintainable. It was open to the defendant to raise the plea of abatement of the suit, if and when he filed an appeal against the decree for eviction which might be passed by the trial court. ( 7 ) HAVING thus cleared the deck and laid down the principle of law, let us see as to whether the order of the Controller was such as could be said to have affected any right or liability of either of the parties. The Controller simply declined to decide the question as a preliminary issue, and it was open for the tenant to press the issue along with the other pleas. Therefore, no appeal could have been taken under S. 13 of the Act against such an order. The matter would have been just the other way, had the Controller decided the question of res judicata instead of refusing to do so. Therefore, no appeal could have been taken under S. 13 of the Act against such an order. The matter would have been just the other way, had the Controller decided the question of res judicata instead of refusing to do so. If he decided that the application was barred by res judicata, then the right of the landlord to prosecute the case would have been affected as the whole proceeding would have failed on that finding. Similarly, if he decided that the application was not barred by res judicata, then it would have exposed the tenant to the risk of eviction. The order of the Controller, having not affected the right or liability of either of the parties, was simply an innocuous order and not appealable. ( 8 ) THE application, therefore, must succeed. It is hereby allowed and the order of the appellate authority is quashed. The Controller is directed to dispose of the eviction application on its merits along with the question of res judicata expeditiously and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. ( 9 ) G. B. PATNAIK, J. :- I agree. ( 10 ) L. RATH, J. :- I agree. Petition allowed.