N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment of the First Appellate Court in C.M.A. No. 82 of 2006 setting aside the decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 2695 of 1987 in O.S. No. 9570 of 1986 the present Revision has been filed.

2. The brief facts leading to file this Revision Petition is as follows:

(a) The suit was originally filed by the First Plaintiff for ejecting the defendant from the suit property. The suit was filed inter-alia contending that the tenant is in possession of 375 sq. ft. in R.S. No. 2599/72 at Door No. 23, Syed Ahamed Hussain Sahib Street, Mylapore, Chennai-4.

(b) Written statement was filed by the Defendant stating that he is occupation of 624 sq. ft. and not 375 sq. ft. as alleged by the Plaintiff. During the pendency of the above suit the defendant/tenant has filed Application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, claiming benefit under the said Act as such he is entitled to buy the land in his occupation. Counter was filed by the Respondents/legal heirs of the First Plaintiff that they have no objection for selling the area land in the occupation of the Petitioner/tenant. Whereas it is specifically contended by the Respondents/landlords that the petitioner is occupying only 375 sq. ft. Accordingly, they have no objection to appoint Advocate Commissioner to find out the exact area. The trial Court fixed the market value of Rs. 9,204/- for 624 sq. ft. as against which, an appeal was filed before the I Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has set aside the order, as against which the present Revision is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would vehemently contend that though the suit was filed on 8.12.1986, the tenant filed application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, on 23.1.1987 wherein the Plaintiff has admitted for selling the land to the Revision Petitioner in his Counter. Accordingly, Advocate Commissioner was appointed on 18.01.1988 to enquire into the exact land in occupation of the Revision Petitioner and to determine the land value. Subsequently, a Memo was filed in the month of December 1989 stating that the Plaintiff had died. Therefore, the suit was dismissed as abated as against the 1st Plaintiff. However, Advocate Commissioner has filed a Report in I.A. No. 2695 of 1987 fixing the market value and 624 sq. ft. is in occupation of the tenant. Despite the matter has been adjourned for filing objection to the Commissioner Report, till 7.8.1990 no objection was filed. Accordingly on 7.8.1990, the trial Court has fixed the market value as Rs. 9,204/- for an extent of 624 sq. ft. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner again filed an application against the Respondent to execute sale deed. In the above application, the original plaintiff's Legal Representatives were brought on record. Challenging the same, C.R.P. No. 1063 of 2002 was filed. This Court by order dated 12.08.2003 dismissed the C.R.P. by holding that since LRs. have brought on record in subsequent proceedings, there is no illegality in decree. Thereafter, Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act application once again taken for disposal and the Respondent set ex-parte on 6.8.1999. The trial court directed the Revision Petitioner to deposit the sum within one month and finally on 4.3.2002 payment was recorded. Thereafter, on 5.3.2002 order passed in I.A. directing the respondent to execute the sale deed. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel that on 1.2.2002 order is only a consequential order to earlier order passed fixing market value on 7.8.1990. The above order has not been challenged by the respondent. Therefore, the consequential order cannot be challenged.

4. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the Commissioner has arrived the market value taking note of the registered sale deed and also he took note of the average value for three years preceding to the date