K S MAHABOOB BASHA Vs. KANEEZ FATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises in the revision petition is whether the appeal filed petitioners herein before the appellate authority against the order of the Rent Controller refusing to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the building and note the physical was maintainable.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioners submits that according to the judgment Sathia-dev, J. , in N. P. Appulu v. A. Fatima Loera, 96 L. W. 569, the order was an appealable one. There is a judgment of natarajan, J. reported in V. Govindarajulu v. T. Govindarajulu, (1989)1 L. W. 540, taking a contrary view, learned counsel for the petitioners submits view of the conflict the matter must be referred to a Division Bench of this Court for the conflict. In normal circumstances when there is a conflict of views between two judges of this Court, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench, But I find judgment of Natarajan, J. is based upon a judgment of the Supreme Court which is on the point. Though Sathiadev, J. has referred to the judgment of the supreme Court laid down the test correctly, he has taken the view that an order refusing to appoint Commissioner will affect the rights of parties in a case. That view is clearly wrong in view the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokul Chand, (1967)2 S. C. J. 828: A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 799.

(3.) MOREOVER it cannot be said that a report of the commissioner is the final word on subject and it is not as if the Court should accept any report which may be filed by Commissioner appointed by the Court. It is certainly open to the parties to show that report of the Commissioner should not be accepted by Court by cross-examining Commissioner and proving it to be wrong. In those circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the Rent Controller refusing to appoint Commissioner affects his clients rights is not tenable and it cannot be accepted.