The appointment of advocate commissioner in an eviction petition should serve a purpose in deciding the grounds for eviction and should not amount to collection of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order passed in RCA.SR.No.10904 of 2017 against MP.No.316 of 2015 in RCOP.No.1337 of 2013 dated 21.09.2017 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Chennai.

1. This civil revision petition is directed as against the order passed in RCA.SR.No.10904 of 2017 thereby dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and confirmed the order passed in MP.No.316 of 2015 in RCOP.No.1337 of 2013 dated 21.09.2017 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Chennai thereby dismissing the petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

2. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent filed petition for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation, act of waste and different uses. While pending the petition, the petitioners herein filed petition to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the petition premises with the assistance of the architect or civil engineer and submit a report. That was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred civil revision petition before this Court in CRP.PD.No.311 of 2017. This court dismissed the same as not maintainable and only appeal is maintainable as against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. As observed by this Court, the petitioners filed appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and the same was also dismissed as not maintainable for the reason that the order passed in MP.No.316 of 2015 does not come under the purview of Section 23 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

3. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court observed in CRP.PD.No.311 of 2017 that under 23 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, only appeal shall lie as against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and directed the petitioners to file appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. When there is a specific direction issued by this Court, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority without even numbering the appeal dismissed the same as not maintainable in the SR stage itself. He further submitted that the respondent made specific allegation that the petition premises used for different purpose other than originally it was let out and also made allegation of act of waste. Therefore, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is absolutely necessary to note down the physical features of the petition premises. In fact, the second, third and fourth floors are occupied by other tenants and they are reason for any damage to the petition premises and as such the advocate commissioner is very much necessary to note down the physical features of the petition premises. In fact, the respondent failed to produce any sanctioned plan or planning permission or permit for starting a medical centre / foundation in the petition premises and therefore, the petition premises is not feasible for having medical centre and this location is opt for using same as medical centre have to be found out. Therefore, necessary architect or civil engineer has to inspect the suit property with the Advocate Commissioner and file a report and it would be useful for the learned Rent Controller to decide the issues arising in eviction petition.

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as against the order passed under Section 18(a) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1960 to appoint advocate commissioner, appeal under Section 23(1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act is very much applicable since this Court also reiterated the same and dismissed the civil revision petition f