C P SUDHAKAR Vs. J S RAGHUSEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13.03.2015 made in I.A.No.6 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Vellore.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent/landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2012 for eviction on the ground of additional occupation. He also filed I.A.No.2 of 2012, wherein Advocate Commissioner was appointed, he inspected the property and filed a report. The petitioner/tenant filed objection and also filed a petition in I.A.No.6 of 2014 for rejection of the Advocate Commissioner's report. The Trial Court after hearing both sides has dismissed the application. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Advocate Commissioner has acted beyond the scope of the warrant issued. He further submitted that there is no direction by the Court to take the help of the Civil Engineer but he got the assistance of the Civil Engineer to measure the property. He would also submit that in the report he has given the finding that the place is necessary for additional occupation as if he render judgment. He also submitted that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed only to collect material evidence and as per the decision reported in CDJ 2013 MHC 376 (Banu @ Banumathi and others vs. Muniammal), wherein it was clearly stated that no Commissioner shall be appointed for collecting material evidence. That factum was not considered by the Trial Court. He would also relied upon another decision reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1958 (P.Sankarappan vs. R.Jayachandran), wherein it was stated that Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for finding out the facts and gather evidence to prove the case of the parties. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court.