Appointment of Commissioner not confined to local inspection only.

Padmini Jesudurai, J.

1. The above civil revision petition is by the tenant under an order of eviction passed by both the Courts below under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Proceedings relate to a shop bearing door No. 6, in door No. 157, Strahans Road, Perambur Barracks, Madras 12. The respondent as landlord filed an application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. H.R.C. No. 193 of 1983 before the Rent Controller (XIII Court of Small Causes, Madras) seeking eviction of the tenant on the averment that he had purchased the petition premises as also the other portions of door No. 157, Strahans Road, under a sale deed for the purpose of accommodating his present business which he was carrying on in rented premises in the same road. The above action of the respondent was resisted by the petitioner on the averment that he did not admit the above need of the respondent for the premises for his own use and occupation and also that he did not admit that the respondent was carrying on business in rented buildings and does not own any other shop.

3. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and had Exs. P1 to P9 marked on his side. The respondent filed M.P. No. 114 of 1984 for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to inspect the premises No. 3/1, Babu Naicken St. Perambur, Madras wherein the respondent was carrying on his business of book-binding; under the name and style M/s. Sri Venkateswara Binding Works and on orders being passed on the above application, an advocate commissioner was appointed by the Rent Controller who after due notice to the respective parties visited the business premises and submitted a report which was marked as Ex. C. 1.

4. On the materials placed before him, the learned Rent Controller found that the averment that the respondent was carrying on business under the name and style M/s. Sri Venkateswara Binding works, was true and that the above business was carried on at door No. 3/1, Babu Naicken St. Perambur and that the above premises did not belong to the respondent and that therefore, the requirements of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) were satisfied and ordered eviction. The petitioner filed R.C.A. No. 662 of 1985 before the VIII Court of Small Causes, Madras (Appellate Authority) who concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and confirming the order of eviction, dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The tenant has preferred the present revision.

5. Thiru A. Ramanathan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made two submissions : (1) That there was perversity in the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both the Courts below and the findings arrived, not being on a proper appreciation of facts, had to be set aside by this Court under its revisional powers. (2) That while the present revision was pending before this Court, a similar petition for eviction filed by the respondent in respect to a shop adjacent to the petition premises bearing door No. 7 had been ordered and even the revision petition filed by the tenant in that case viz., C.R.P. No. 710 of 1985 had been dismissed by this Court and that therefore, the respondent had an order of eviction as against a tenant in the immediately adjacent shop and this subsequent event had also to be taken into consideration by this Court for the purpose of holding that the need of the respondent for the petition premises even if it had existed at the time of the commencement of this proceeding could not be said to exist now, that therefore, the respondent was not entitled to have an order of eviction of the petitioner herein.

6. Per contra, Thiru R. Sundararajan, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below both regarding the business carried on by the respondent and also regarding the fact that the present premises where th