A K PANCHATCHARA MUDALIAR Vs. A N SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who has suffered an order of eviction before the Rent Controller which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority is the petitioner before me. Eviction was sought by the respondent under S. 14(1)()b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings) (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE petition was Iresisted by the tenant on the ground that the building was in a good condition and the landlord had no means to demolish the same and erect a new structure. THE landlord examined himself as P.W.I while the tenant examined himself as R.W.I. THE landlord filed the notices exchanged between the parties and the order of the Municipality sanctioning his plan and another order extending the period of validity of the plan. THE tenant filed the refused money order. THE Rent Controller appointed an Advocate as Commissioner, who inspected the building and filed a report and a plan. THE report was marked as Exhibit Cl and the plan was marked as Exhibit C2.

(3.) THE first contention is that the report of the Commissioner appointed by the court is not admissible in evidence in the absence of the Commissioner being examined as a witness in Court. It is argued that this court had consistently held before the introduction of S. 18-A in the Act that the Rent Controller was not a civil court and he had no power to appoint a commissioner. It was laid down in Seethalakslumi Animal v. Rajanvnal 1965 IMLJ 287, T.K. Chennakesavlu v. Mansukhal& Others 661 MLJ 300 and 1971 II MLJ 379, and Munuswami Naidu v. Kasim 1991-M.LJ. 379 = 84 L.W. 521 Khan that it was open to a party to examine the Commissioner and file his report as a document and only in that event, the report of the Commissioner could be looked into. That was the view taken by this Court when S. 18-A was not in the statute book. THE Rent Controller, not being a Civil Court, had no jurisdiction to appoint a Commissioner and if a Commissioner was appointed and a report was filed by him, naturally it would have been worth nodiing without his entering the witness box. But the view taken by this Court is not applicable to the present case as the Act has been amended and by the introduction of S. 18- A, the Act conferred powers on the Rent Controller to appoint a Commissioner.