UMMU SALMA BEEVI Vs. BALARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is against an order in m. P. No. 946 of 1996 in R. C. A. No. 416 of 1996 dated 5-8-1996 on the file of the viii Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras .

(2.) THE landlady has preferred this revision against the order mentioned above by the Rent Control Appellate authority, directing her to be summoned, for examination with reference to Ex. P. l an authorisation given in favour of her son one Zakir Hussain, in the rent controj proceedings.

(3.) BEFORE going into the question raised by the counsel on either side, it is necessary to point out that the scope of the appeal itself is limited to the summoning of the respondent to give evidence in the rent Control Proceedings, with reference to Ex. P. l. When the respondent wanted the examination of the petitioner in the Rent Control Court, the Rent controller has rejected the claim of the respondent, he has preferred an appeal. If he succeeds in the appeal, the petitioner will be summoned and she will be examined with reference to Ex. P. l. Therefore, what is to be decided in the appeal is, whether the Rent Controller was right in rejecting the claim of the respondent for summoning the petitioner to give evidence. The Rent controller's order is not an order with reference to the real dispute in the case before him. The petition M. P No. 946 of 1996 was filed under Rule 16 (2)read with Rules 28 (6) and (7) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Rules, 1974. In substance, the petition is for additional evidence as contemplated by Sec. 23 (3) of the said Act.