ORDER: I.A.No.308 of 1991 in R.C.O.P.No.350 of 1988 on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Madurai - Application for scrapping the report of the Advocate Commissioner was dismissed. The order of dismissal was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Judge, Madurai in R.C.A. No.163 of 1995. This revision arises out of the concurrent findings of the Authorities below declining to scrap the Advocate Commissioner’s report. 2. Relevant facts could briefly be stated thus: R.C.O.P.No.350 of 1988 was filed by the landlords under Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short “Rent Control Act”) for fixation of Fair Rent relating to the building in door No.288-A, Kamaraj Salai, Madurai Town. 3. I.A.No.70 of 1989 was filed by the Landlords for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to note: (i) area of the leasehold property, (ii) nature of the building and its age, (iii) its locational advantages and such other details. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed for assessing the age of the building including the area of the leasehold property and the locational advantages. The Advocate Commissioner has taken assistance of the Engineer. The Advocate Commissioner has filed his report along with the report of the Engineer. 4.I.A.No.308 of 1991: This application is filed by the tenants for scrapping the report of the Advocate Commissioner. According to the tenants, the Commissioner has exceeded the warrant, in taking assistance of the Private Engineer, who was brought in by the landlords in assessing the area of the property, nature of the building, its age and locational advantages. Since the Advocate Commissioner has taken the help of Private Engineer, the report of the Advocate Commissioner is not an impartial one and the Court cannot act upon it in fixation of fair rent and hence, the tenants seek for scrapping of the report. The application is seriously opposed by the landlords. 5. Negativing the submissions of the tenants, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application finding that the report of the Advocate Commissioner annexed with the Engineer’s report itself is not a conclusive opinion; but only to aid and assist the Court in arriving at the conclusion in fixation of fair rent. The learned Rent Controller was of the view that any defect or irregularity in the report of the Commissioner could be gone in at the time of trial. The learned Rent Controller was of the view that any defect or irregularity in the report of the Commissioner could be gone in at the time of trial. The Rent Control Appellate Authority/learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed R.C.A.No.163 of 1995. 6. As against the concurrent findings of the Authorities below in declining to scrap the Advocate Commissioner’s report, this revision is preferred. The report of the Advocate Commissioner is assailed contending that the tenants are deprived of their opportunity to cross examine the Engineer, whose report forms part of the Advocate Commissioner’s report. It is further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner has exceeded the warrant in taking the assistance of the Engineer, who himself has proceeded to fix Fair Rent, which is a biased one. 7. Seriously assailing the maintainability of the revision, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Landlords submitted that when the warrant issued to the Advocate Commissioner to assess area and age of the building and its locational advantages, the Advocate Commissioner was fully justified in taking the assistance of the Engineer. Reiterating the findings of the Authorities below, it is further submitted that the Revision Petitioners have every opportunity to cross-examine the Advocate Commissioner. Submitting that the revision is not maintainable, it is contended that the revision is filed only to delay the trial proceedings. 8. Upon consideration of the submissions, orders of the Authorities below and other available materials, the only short point that arises for determination in this revision is: Whether revision petitioners/tenants are justified in seeking for scrapping of the report of the Advocate Commissioner merely on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner had taken the assistance of the Engineer and whether the impugned order suffers from any erroneous approach warranting interference? 9. The rent control petition is filed under Sec.4 of Rent Control Act for fixation of Fair Rent relating to the property in Kamarajar Salai, Madurai Town, an area of important business locality. The building is said to be near Meenakshi Amman Temple in Madurai. Admittedly, the Fair Rent is to be fixed on various factors like: (i) area of the building; (ii) market value of the site, (iii) cost of construction (iv) amenities available, (v) type of building (vi) depreciation allowable and such other factors. Therefore, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is absolutely necessitated to submit his report on the above aspects. Admittedly, the Fair Rent is to be fixed on various factors like: (i) area of the building; (ii) market value of the site, (iii) cost of construction (iv) amenities available, (v) type of building (vi) depreciation allowable and such other factors. Therefore, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is absolutely necessitated to submit his report on the above aspects. 10. In this case, on application by the landlords, the Commissioner was appointed to note the area of leasehold property, nature of the building, its age and locational advantages and such other relevant details. The Commissioner himself is not an expert in assessing the valuation of the building, the area site, age of the building, amenities and the type of the building as per Schedule II of the Rent Control Act. Necessarily, the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed, is to take assistance of the Engineer. In the Commissioner’s warrant, it may not have been specifically indicated authorising the Commissioner to take the assistance by the Engineer; but the Commissioner being appointed to submit his report as to the nature of the building, cost of construction etc. was well within his right in taking the assistance of the qualified Engineer. Without taking such assistance, it would not be possible for the Advocate Commissioner to effectively execute the warrant and complete the work. Even if the Advocate Commissioner by himself assessed the age of the building, cost of constructions and other things, it would have been only incomplete. He would have merely referred to the business, importance of the area, physical features and such other aspects, which would not completely serve the purpose for fixation of Fair Rent. Therefore, by taking the assistance of the Engineer, the Advocate Commissioner cannot be said to have exceeded his authority in execution of the warrant. 11. The Engineer has arrived at certain calculations. Report of the Engineer is submitted along with the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The defects or irregularities if any in the report of the Engineer or in the report of the Commissioner could very well be raised at the time of trial itself. Certainly not by way of interim application to scrap the same. Scrapping of the report of the Advocate Commissioner has serious consequences, implying as if the Commissioner has violated the directions by seeking the assistance of Engineer. The Advocate Commissioner has neither contravened the warrant nor acted in excess. Certainly not by way of interim application to scrap the same. Scrapping of the report of the Advocate Commissioner has serious consequences, implying as if the Commissioner has violated the directions by seeking the assistance of Engineer. The Advocate Commissioner has neither contravened the warrant nor acted in excess. The concurrent findings of the Authorities below on that aspect is to be endorsed with. Rightly, it is submitted by the respondents/landlords that Application No.70 of 1989 is filed only to delay the enquiry proceedings. The Authorities below have rightly refused to scrap the report. 12. Seriously assailing the maintainability of the revision as against the interlocutory orders - order of appointment of Commissioner, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords has relied upon The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 799, which was followed by this Court in A.Ramalingam v. Abdul Muthaliff, (1992)2 L.W. 768 . Finding that the appointment or refusal to appoint the Advocate Commissioner is only a procedural one, which does not affect the rights of the parties in the matter, and that the Revision is not maintainable, in A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 799, it was held that such an order is not appealable one nor a revision lies. 13. Elaborately referring to the various case laws on the subject and discussing the views and the contra views, AR.Lakshmanan, J. (as his Lordship then was) in A.Ramalingam v. Abdul Muthaliff, (1992)2 L.W. 768 held thus: “An order of the Rent Controller refusing to issue a commission (under Sec.18-A) for inspection and preparation of a plan of the premises is a mere procedural order not affecting any right or liability of the parties. The issue of a commission is only a step for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case. It is open to canvass the error, defect or irregularity, if any, i n the order in an appeal from the final order passed in the proceedings for eviction, but no appeal from the order would lie to the Appellate Authority. The order refusing to appoint a Commissioner, will not affect the rights of the parties. It is open to canvass the error, defect or irregularity, if any, i n the order in an appeal from the final order passed in the proceedings for eviction, but no appeal from the order would lie to the Appellate Authority. The order refusing to appoint a Commissioner, will not affect the rights of the parties. As the rights of both parties are not in any manner affected by the refusal of the Court to appoint Commissioner, the said order is not appealable.” The above proposition squarely applies to the case in hand where the revision petitioners/tenants have approached this Court as against the interlocutory order refusing to scrap the report of the Advocate Commissioner. 14. When the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner itself is a procedural one, the question whether the Commissioner has exceeded the warrant in taking the assistance of the Engineer certainly not affects the rights or liabilities of the parties. The refusal of the Authorities below to wipe of the Commissioner’s report does not suffer from any material irregularity or erroneous approach warranting interference. This revision petition is bereft of merits and is bound to fail. 15. Therefore, the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in R.C.A. No.163 of 1995 confirming the order of the Rent Controller/ Princi pal District Munsif, Madurai in I.A.No.308 of 1991 (dated 19.11.1998) is confirmed. This revision petition is dismissed with the costs of the respondents. The learned Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Madurai is directed to dispose of the Rent Control Petition R.C.O.P.No.350 of 1998 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.