T. Sathiadev, J.

1. In this revision petition against the order of the Court of the Rent Controller, enabling examination of Mrs. S. J. Ispahani alias Shahr Bano Begum and Mrs. Fathima Sultan Begum on commission, issued under Section 18-A of Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, this civil revision petition is filed. The first contention is that while exercising powers under Section 18-A of the Act, the-Court can appoint a Commissioner only for local investigation, and it cannot extend to a Commission being issued to examine witnesses . The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that an amendment was incorporated under Section 15 of Act XXIII of 1973, consequent to the decisions of this Court reported in Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Rajammal (1965) 1 M.LJ. 287 at 288 and Chinnakesavalu v. Mansukhlal (1966) 1 M.L.J. 300 at 301. He would' state that when the amendment had been effected consequent to such pronouncements, it cannot be treated as having conferred powers on the Controller to issue Commissions for alt such purposes, as may be done under the Civil Procedure Code. He refers to Rule 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings; (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974, to plead that it contempla