1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.43 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 S.Vedhagiri .. Petitioner Vs. R.S.Gopalan .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 09.09.2008 passed in Interlocutory Application No.39 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2004 by the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Perumal ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.39 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2004 by the Rent Controller/ District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the Court below for the relief of eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole respondent. During pendency of the same, the respondent as petitioner has filed a petition for appointing an Advocate Commissioner, wherein an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he inspected the demised building and filed his report and plan and subsequently the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.39 of 2007 so as to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of inspecting the demised building with the assistance of an Engineer of Public Works Department and the Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissed order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.39 of 2007 as well as the nature of the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondent and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The only grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner is that the Advocate Commissioner, who has been appointed earlier inspected the demised building without the assistance of an Engineer and under the said circumstances, the report and plan filed by him do not reflect the real state of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 affairs and therefore the present petition has been filed for getting appointment of an Advocate Commissioner afresh, but the Court below without considering the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. As pointed out earlier R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2004 has been filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and the respondent/petitioner has filed a petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and accordingly an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he inspected the demised building and subsequently filed his report and plan, but he has not inspected the demised building with the assistance of an Engineer. 6. If really the Advocate Commissioner, who has been appointed earlier inspected the demised building without the assistance of an Engineer and subsequently filed his report and plan, the revision petitioner can very well file a petition so as to re-issue the commission warrant to the same Commissioner with a specific direction to inspect the property with the assistance of a qualified Engineer. But instead of adopting that process, the revision petitioner has unnecessarily come forward with the present petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.39 of 2007. Further the allegation made in the petition against the Commissioner has not at all sufficient so as to appoint an Advocate Commissioner afresh and therefore the order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.39 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2004 by the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam is confirmed. However the revision petitioner is at liberty to file a petition so as to re-issue the commission warrant to the same Commissioner, who has already been appointed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam. +1cc to Mr.V.Perumal, Advocate, Sr.No.2129 smn ssk/08.02.2011 /3c-2p/- C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.43 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 20.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/