S.N. PONRAJ Vs. M.S. KUMARAN @ VAIDYANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order appointing Advocate Commissioner passed by the learned Rent Controller Additional District Munsif, Madurai in I.A. No.22 of 2017 in RCOP. No.31 of 2013 under the impression as if the main petition has been filed for fixation of fair rent whereas the petition is filed for demolition and re-construction under Sec. 14 (1)(B) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The contention of the petitioner is that the Rent Controller has requested the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned building after issuing notice to both parties to note down the physical features of the adjacent locality, market rate of the entire building and other features and submit a detailed report with plan as if the petition is filed under Sec. 4 of the Act. While the respondent in his application sought for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features, the Court has ordered ascertain the market rate, adjacent locality etc., Thus the Rent Controller has gone beyond the relief sought for and therefore, the order passed in the Interlocutory Application has to be modified or rectified.

(2.) On perusing the typed set of papers filed by the revision petitioner this Court finds that I.A.No.22 of 2017 has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant under Sec. 18(A) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act and Sec. 151 of Civil Procedure Code for the following relief :- "The Honourable Court may be pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and directed to note down the entire physical features of the entire property and also to find out the actual area occupied by this petitioner/tenant in the entire property and to file a detailed report with plan."

(3.) The prayer in the RCOP. No. 31 of 2013 filed by the landlord is for possession of the property on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. On perusal of the impugned order passed in the I.A. No. 22 of 2017 reveals that the Rent Controller had gone beyond the prayer sought as if the RCOP has been filed for fair rent. As a consequence error has been crept in directing the Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the market rate of the building also.