An order refusing to appoint a Commissioner under Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is not appealable as it does not affect the rights of the parties.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The respondent-landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Thiruvarur, for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in question on the ground of wilful default, act of waste and ceasing to occupy the premises in question. The said R.C.O.P. was transferred to the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Nannilam, and renumbered as R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1991. The said R.C.O.P. is pending. The petitioner-tenant filed a counter in the R.C.O.P. stating that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction as the lease is only of the site. He has also denied the claims put forward by the respondent-landlord in the R.C.O.P.

2. While matters stood thus, the landlord filed I.A. No. 36 of 1990 in R.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thiruvarur, for appointment of a Commissioner, under Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has substantially damaged the back portion of the building and is also attempting to unauthorisedly put up some construction, and in view of the attitude of the petitioner, it has become necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to make a local inspection of the building and note its physical features, present state of the building and structures thereon and submit a report to the Court with plan. That application was resisted by the tenant-petitioner herein. The learned Rent Controller, Thiruvarur, dismissed that application for non-prosecution.

3. After the transfer of R.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1989 to the Rent Controller, Nannilam, the matter was taken up for trial. The evidence of the landlord was over in the first week of September, 1991. The tenant's witness was also examined in part. At that stage, the landlord filed I.A. No. 1 of 1991 in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1991 on the file of the Rent Controller, Nannilam, for appointment of a Commissioner to make a local inspection and to note down the present state of affairs of the premises. The petitioner-tenant resisted the said application on various grounds including the ground that the application lacked bona fides and was without any purpose. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the said application on 2-4-1991. The landlord filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 15 of 1991 before the Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. The tenant resisted the said appeal on merits and also on the ground that the said appeal itself is not maintainable. The Appellate Authority, however, allowed the appeal by order dated 11-12-1991. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has filed the present revision petition.

4. The revision petition was admitted by T. Somasundaram, J. on 24-1-1992 and in C.M.P. No. 457 of 1992 interim stay was also granted on the same day. The interim stay was made absolute by me on 13-11-1992 and the revision petition itself was directed to be posted for final disposal before me.

5. I have heard Mr. R. Muthukumaraswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Mr. Sathish Kumar learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the order of the Appellate Authority is contrary to law, without jurisdiction and vitiated by material irregularity, as contended by Mr. R. Muthukumaraswami, learned Counsel for the tenant or whether the Appellate Authority is right in allowing the appeal filed by the landlord against the order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on the ground that the said order is not one affecting the rights of the parties, as contended by Mr. Sathish, learned Counsel for the landlord.

6. In support of his contention, Mr. R. Muthukumaraswami, has placed strong reliance on two decisions of this Court reported in V. Govindarajalu v. T. Govindarajalu, 1989 (1) LW 540 of K. M. Natarajan, J., an