1. The Petitioner has challenged the order appointing a Commissioner in a Part-heard case contending it as one without jurisdiction, per se illegal and even perverse. The facts in brief are, the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No. 1274 of 1992 against the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) for wilful default, 10(2) (v) for acts of waste and 10(3)

(a) (i) for owner’s occupation of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in short Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). After completion of the pleadings, the case was taken up for trial on 28. 1993 adjourned to 9. 1993. The respondent landlord after examination in part, filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition scheduled property occupied by the petitioner herein with a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to avail the services of a civil engineer to submit a report with plan and other enclosures. The said application was opposed by the petitioner herein tenant. After hearing the arguments on the application, order was reserved and case was adjourned from 21. 1994 to various dates and finally on 11. 1994, order was prono