GANAPATHY AMMAL Vs. CHANDARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review application is filed by the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2740 of 1993 and is against my order dated 25.11.1993 in the said civil revision petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is the landlady under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and she filed R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller, Valliyur for eviction of the respondent tenant herein from the petition building, inter alia on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. In 1993 she filed I.A. No. 8 of 1993, where she sought for cancellation of the earlier report of the Advocate-Commissioner, regarding the condition of the building in question and sought for appointment of an engineer as Commissioner to report regarding the condition of the building. THE said application was allowed. Aggrieved, the respondent herein filed the abovesaid civil revision petition, and by the above referred to order dated 25.11.19931 set aside the order in I.A. No. 8 of 1993 and allowed the civil revision petition. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.11.1993 this review petition has been filed by the landlady.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies on the above referred to judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as he then was) in (1968)I M.L.J. 435 ( Supra ) and also submits that the reasoning of the Supreme Court decision in the above referred to AIR 1967 S.C. 799 will not apply to the present facts. He also relies on Raju v. Mohamadabi (1993-2-L.W. 171) which holds that the Rent Controller cannot be considered to be a persona designata relying on Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank (AIR 1967 S.C. 1494). So, the said learned Counsel submits that this Court has got jurisdiction to try the abovesaid civil revision petition and that therefore, the ground taken in the review petition that this review is maintainable in view of the abovesaid lack of jurisdiction is not sustainable.