KALYANI RAGUNATH Vs. K MUTHURAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RENT Control Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 31.03.2006.The petitioner/landlady has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order in M.P.No.57 of 2006 passed by the learned Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in allowing the application filed by the respondent/tenant praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises, which is subject matter of the RENT Control Appeal and assess the fair rent payable in respect of the same, if necessary with the help of the qualified Engineer and resultantly, appointing an Advocate Commissioner etc.

(2.) THE learned Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, while passing order in M.P.No.57 of 2006, has allowed the M.P. on 31.03.2006 by appointing Thiru. M. Suresh, Advocate as Court Commissioner and directed him to inspect the suit property along with building Engineer by issuance of notice to respective sides and also directed the Commissioner to submit his report in regard to the status of the petition building before 17.4.2006 and fixed the remuneration of the Commissioner at Rs.1,500/- etc.

(3.) HE also relies on the decision of this Court in Engineers Associates, Mechanical Engineers, Chennai V. J. Parvathi and Another 2007 (5) CTC 835 at page 838 wherein it is among other things held thus:"... To put it in a nutshell, whether the common area was included or whether the tenant's actual possession was only 538 sq. ft. and not 544 sq. ft. as alleged, it is purely a question on fact to be appreciated by the learned Appellate Authority at the time of hearing of the main R.C.A.No.42 of 1997 pending on its file. The evidence of both the Engineers and documentary evidence on record are very much available in the case, then it is otiose to for the tenant/petitioner to file the M.P.No.90 of 2001 praying for an appointment of Commissioner and the same is not per se maintainable in the eye of law. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reason assigned by the learned Appellate Authority in dismissing the M.P.No.90 of 2001, praying for appointment of Commissioner that the said appointment is not necessary in lieu of discrepancy of 6 sq. ft., etc., is not correct.".