T S RAMU Vs. NEELAKANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed against the dismissal of M.P.No.367 of 2001 in R.C.A.No.529 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras.

(2.) The respondent as landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.2216 of 1995 in the Rent Control Court (XII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition non-residential premises bearing No.86, Subramania Swamy Koil Street, Saidapet, Madras-15, subject matter of this Civil Revision Petition. The learned Rent Controller considering the evidence of P.W.1, Engineer examined on the side of the landlord and that of the tenant as R.W.1 and the Engineer R.W.2 examined on the side of the tenant and also Exs.P-1 to P-3 marked on the side of the landlord fixed the fair rent at Rs.498/- per month. Against that order the tenant filed the Rent Control Appeal No.529 of 1997.

(3.) During the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal No.529 of 1997, the tenant filed M.P.No.367 of 2001 seeking appointment of advocate-commissioner to find out the actual area under the occupation of the tenant and to file report. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the petition as per order dated 11.9.2001 relying on the judgment of this Court in P.K.Duraivelu Mudaliar vs. - S.P.Monahasundaram reported in 1995(1) M.L.J. 184 wherein this Court has held that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has no power under Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 to appoint advocate-commissioner. That order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.