TEJRAJ SARAMMAL Vs. BAJRANGLAL DAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant and the revision is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.1998 in R.C.A.No.8 of 1995 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.

(2.) The respondent herein as landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.560 of 1985 in the Small Cause Court, Madras under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") that the petition non-residential premises was required bona fide for own use and occupation. In the R.C.O.P.No.5 60 of 1985 eviction was ordered and confirmed in the Civil Revision Petition No.3025 of 1992 by this Court. The possession also was taken on 30.7.1993 through Court by filing execution petition E.P.No.446 of 1993. The tenant, viz., the revision petitioner herein filed R.C.O.P.No.2271 of 1993 on 28.9.1993 under Section 10(5)(a) of the Act seeking restoration of possession of the petition premises on the ground that the landlord has not occupied the said petition nonresidential premises. The tenant also filed M.P.No.744 of 1993 on the same day for appointment of advocate-commissioner praying to inspect the petition property bearing door No.3, Veerappan Street, Madras 79, thrice a day between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. continuously for a week to find out whether the respondent/landlord is in occupation of the said shop and running a business without notice to the respondent/landlord.

(3.) The Rent Controller, considering the facts and circumstances appointed an advocate-commissioner. The advocate-commissioner after inspecting the petition premises for about one week from 5.10.1993 to 12.10.1993 daily thrice as stated in the report, has filed his report stating that during his inspection on those days and at the time mentioned in the report, the petition shop was always closed and no business was carried out during his visit. The respondent/landlord filed M.P.No.660 of 1994 to set aside the ex parte order made in M.P.No.7 44 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.No.2271 of 1993 as per which an advocatecommissioner was appointed without ordering notice to the landlord. The petition was dismissed after contest on 7.10.1994. Against that order , the landlord preferred appeal R.C.A.No.8 of 1995 and it was allowed finding that the appointment of advocate-commissioner without ordering notice to the landlord by the learned Rent Controller in M.P.No.74 4 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.No.2271 of 1993 is not proper. Such order of the learned Rent Control appellate Authority is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.