M P APPULU Vs. A FATIMA LOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the petitioner herein. Aggrieved against the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the entire building, this revision petition is filed on the ground that the order of appointment of Commissioner pending disposal of the petition for eviction relates only to a procedural aspect and therefore, as against the order of the Rent Controller, no appeal lies to the appellate authority under S. 23 of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, and hence, the order passed in C. M. A. 122 of 1980, having been passed without jurisdiction, requires to be set aside.

(2.) It is the admitted case between the parties that both the tenant and the landladies sought for appointment of an advocate, Commisioner to inspect the properties. The Rent Controller passed orders only in the application filed by the landladies directing that the properties to be inspected are the properties described only in R. C. O. P. 675 and 679 of 1978, and not the entire building. The appeal is confined to the order in I. A. 262 of 1980 in R. C. O. P. 675 of 1978. The prmises involved in this petition is one of the portions of the main building and the petitioner herein occupies a portion of the ground floor. There are four other tenants in the building, and one of them had already vacated. The tenants involved in two other R. C. O. P. Nos. 683 and 685 of 1978, having agreed to vacate, orders of eviction have been already passed. In this petition the landladies have sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the building is required for demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) The main dispute now revolves round the point as to whether the Advocate- Commissioner could submit his report in respect of the entire building or it should be confined only to the premises involved in the R. C. O. P. Tenant absolutely has no objection to the Advocate Commissioner inspecting the premises in his occupation. The order was passed by the appellate authority has now resulted in the further point being taken that, since the order passed by the Rent Controller, appointing a Commissioner relates to a procedural aspect, in the light of the decision rendered by this court in Lakshmiammal v. Sivasubramania, (1981) 2 Mad LJ 206 : (AIR 1981 NOC 171) and Chinnaraja Naidu v. Bavani Bai. (1981) 2 Mad LJ 354, the appellate order deserves to be set aside.