N.KALIDAS Vs. K.P.SUBBAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision petitions have been filed as against the dismissal of the applications filed by the petitioner / landlord in I.A.Nos.83 and 84 of 2009 in R.C.O.P.No.21of 2007 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down all the relevant features of the petition mentioned building by obtaining the services of Public Works Department's Civil Engineer to estimate the market value of the building and submit his report along with the plan and estimate of the Civil Engineer of Public Works Department and to re-open the petitioner's side for letting in further evidence.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the landlord and he had filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.21 of 2007 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent. In the said RCOP, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and the evidence on his side was closed on 24.8.2009. Thereafter, the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and the evidence on his side was also closed on 12.10.2009. Thereafter, the said RCOP was adjourned for arguments for several hearings in between 23.10.2009 and 8.12.2009. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed the present petitions for re-opening the case and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner stating that during the course of recording the evidence, he as P.W.1, had stated that the petition mentioned building consists of RCC roof, whereas the respondent / tenant as R.W.1, in his evidence, had stated that the buildings are Madras tiled buildings and the walls are earthen walls. Therefore, for proper fixation of fair rent of the building, it is absolutely necessary to estimate the present market value of the building by the Public Works Department's Civil Engineer. Thus, the petitioner had sought for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner directing him to inspect and note down all the relevant physical features of the petition mentioned building by obtaining the service of Public Works Department's Civil Engineer.

(3.) But, the said applications were opposed by the respondent herein stating that the Court cannot entrust the work of fixing the market value to the Engineer of the Public Works Department. If an Advocate Commissioner is appointed at this stage, it would amount to fill up the lacuna. Therefore, the Advocate Commissioner need not be appointed for the purpose of noting down the relevant features of the petition mentioned building. Further, the petitioner has not mentioned as to which of the Civil Engineer of the Public Works Department has to be summoned by the Advocate Commissioner. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of both the petitions.