LODGE MALAYSIA Vs. TAMIL NADU REAL ESTATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition against the order of the Court of the Rent Controller, enabling examination of Mrs. S.J. Ispahani alias Shahr Bano Begum and Mrs. Fathima Sultan Begum on commission, issued under section 18-A of Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, this civil revision petition is filed. The first contention is that while exercising powers under section 18-A of the Act, the Court can appoint a Commissioner only for local investigation, and it cannot extend to a Commission being issued to examine witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that an amendment was incorporated under section 15 of Act XXIII of 1973, consequent to the decisions of this Court reported in Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Rajammal1 and Chinnakesavalu v. Mansukhlal2. He would state that when the amendment had been effected consequent to such pronouncements, it cannot be treated as having conferred powers on the Controller to issue Commissions for all such purposes, as may be done under the Civil Procedure Code. He refers to rule 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974, to plead that (it contemplates the procedure to be adopted by the Controller in holding an enquiry and, therefore, if the examination is effected on Commission, it would disentitle the Controller to-record evidence by himself. After adverting to Order 26, Civil Procedure Code, he concludes his contention on this point by stating that in any event, if there is power conferred in the said section, it would not result in a right being conferred on witnesses to demand that they should be examined only on Commission.

(2.) THIS contention is devoid of substance because, whatever may be the factor which prompted the Legislature to introduce the amendment under Act XXIII of 1973, when the Controller had been conferred with powers to appoint a Commissioner for all those purposes which are contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code, there is nothing to infer that the said section is confined only to a Commission being issued for local investigation. As such, a restricted approach is neither spelt out in section 18-A, nor could be gathered from the other sections, in the Act. Hence, THIS contention fails.

(3.) THE third contention is, these two persons are not practising purda, and in fact P.W. 1 has already given evidence that one of these two persons had been collecting rents. THE claim made in the affidavit that the second respondent herein is a purdah woman had been disputed in the counter-affidavit filed and, therefore, the Rent Controller ought to have conducted an enquiry to find out, whether these two persons are practising purdah, or not.