As the point involved in this revision is within a very narrow compass at the request and consent of the Bar for the respective parties, I have heard the whole case in hand and pronounced the following Order:

2. Brief facts of the case are extracted as hereunder: The tenant is the revision petitioner and eviction was sought for before the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.1570 of 1989 by the respondent herein, being the landlord, on the ground of owner’s occupation, as the building is required for accommodation of his married daughter. As the matter was seriously contested after taking into consideration the entire evidence adduced, the learned Rent Controller passed the order of eviction and against which an appeal has been preferred which is pending in R.C.A.No.698 of 1991, on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes Madras. In the appeal, by virtue of Sec.18-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called as "the Act’, an application M.P.No.371 of 1993 has been filed by the tenant- appellant seeking for the appointment of a Commissioner to find out as to whether how many portions were situate in the demised premises of the la