Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2010 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore in RCA No.10 of 2009 in confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 06.03.2009 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Coimbatore in RCOP No.203 of 2007 and the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore/Appellate Authority in dismissing the unnumbered I.A filed under Section 18 A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for getting appointed an Advocate Commissioner, these two civil revision petitions are focused. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of these two revisions as found set out in the records could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: a] The landlord/respondent herein filed the RCOP No.203 of 2007 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of (i) additional accommodation and (ii) demolition and reconstruction by invoking Sections 10(3) (c) and 14(1) (b) of the Act. The matter was contested. b] During enquiry, on the landlord’s side, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the tenant, she examined herself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1. c] Ultimately, the Rent controller ordered eviction on both the grounds as against which appeal was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, unnumbered I.A. of 2010 was filed for getting commissioner appointed with the following prayer: -to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to direct him to note down the physical features and to note down the location of the demised premises and the Hotel K.K.Residency and to file a report with a plan and also give a direction to take photographs in respect of the demised premises and file a report with all the photographs and the plan. (extracted as such) The said application was dismissed and thereafter, the main RCA No.10 of 2009 also was dismissed without hearing both sides. d] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority in passing the aforesaid orders these two revisions have been focused impugning and challenging those two orders on various grounds. 4. (extracted as such) The said application was dismissed and thereafter, the main RCA No.10 of 2009 also was dismissed without hearing both sides. d] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority in passing the aforesaid orders these two revisions have been focused impugning and challenging those two orders on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of these two revisions would develop his argument, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: The landlord is one Hotel K.K.Residency, which is a partnership firm having its hotel building adjacent to the building wherein the demised premises is situated. There is a gap between the said K.K.Residency building and the building in which the demised premises is situated. The demised premises is in a building comprised of two storied building. -In ground floor there are as many as 4 shops and in the first floor one Malabar Restaurant is being run. This building is having nothing to do with the building in which K.K.Residency is running its hotel. -Purely for the purpose of invoking Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act, the KK Residency partnership did choose to put up an over bridge linking the building in which KK Residency is being run and the building in which the demised premises is situated. As such both the buildings are separate units. Unless it could be shown that the buildings are one and the same, there is no probability of invoking the plea of additional accommodation, as per Section 10(3) (c) of the Act. In other words, the landlord should be in occupation of a portion of the building in which the demised premises is situated and only for expanding his business he could invoke Section 10(3) (c) of the Act. In order to find out the realities, the application for appointment of Commissioner was filed but that was rejected abruptly by the Appellate authority and immediately on the very next day i.e., on 23.04.2010, the RCA itself was dismissed without hearing both sides. -As such, according to the landlord both the orders referred to supra are liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the Appellate Authority for hearing both sides and to pass suitable orders. 5. Per contra, Mr. -As such, according to the landlord both the orders referred to supra are liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the Appellate Authority for hearing both sides and to pass suitable orders. 5. Per contra, Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned senior counsel for the respondent/landlord would advance his argument, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: -Even though the lower court in RCA might have passed the order without hearing both sides yet it is an order passed on merits and this court being the revisional court, can rightly consider the reasons furnished by the Appellate court in dismissing the appeal and it need not necessarily be treated as though the appeal was dismissed for default. -The contention as put forth on the side of the learned counsel for the tenant is something untenable for the reason that the RCOP 203 of 2007 was filed by M/s. Hotel K.K.Residency represented by its partner Thajudeen. The fact remains that Section 10 (3) c) of the Act is sought to be invoked by the landlord for the purpose of additional accommodation for expansion of Malabar Restaurant, which is being run by the landlord viz., Hotel K.K.Residency. -The entire evidence on record would clearly display and demonstrate that after purchasing the building from one Muthu Subramanian, the said building was annexed as part and parcel of the already existing building belonging to KK Residency and it has become one unit and there is no question of any Advocate Commissioner going and visiting and noting down the physical features or locating the same would arise and the court below correctly dismissed the same, warranting no interference by this court. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel prays for the dismissal of these two revisions. 6. The points for consideration are as to:- 1. Whether the order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal could be treated as an order passed on merits or it should be treated as one passed on default of the petitioner’s counsel in arguing the appeal? 2. Whether there is any necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner at all to note the physical features and also the location of the building in the facts and circumstances of this case and 3. Whether any interference in the order of the Appellate Authority is warranted in these revisions? Point No.1:- 7. 2. Whether there is any necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner at all to note the physical features and also the location of the building in the facts and circumstances of this case and 3. Whether any interference in the order of the Appellate Authority is warranted in these revisions? Point No.1:- 7. At the outset itself, I would like to re-collect and call-up the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. (i) (2009) 2 SCC 703 (Asit Kumar Kar vs.State of West Bengal and others). An excerpt from it would run thus: “4. It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon of jurisprudence. In the seven Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in A.R.Antulay v.R.S.Nayak it has been observed in para 55 thereof (SCC p.660). “55…… So also the violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity”. 5. One of the counsel relied upon another five Judge Constitution Bench decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v.Ashok Hurra. it is true that in para 9 of the judgment it has been observed that this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot hold as invalid a judgment of this court by treating it as a nullity. However, the aforesaid judgment does not say that we cannot pass a recall order when that order has been passed without hearing a party. 6. There is a distinction between a petition under Article 32, a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition the Court considers on merits where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party.” (ii) (2010) 4 SCC 785 [Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers], certain excerpts from it would run thus: “10. ………..The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. ………..The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad. 14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients: firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders.” A mere poring over and perusal of those judgments and more specifically the aforesaid excerpts would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that without hearing the petitioner or the appellant, if an order is passed, it can only be treated as an order passed on default alone and it cannot be taken as an order passed on merits. 8. Here no doubt, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the landlord, the counsel for the tenant did not utilise the opportunities given by the Appellate Authority. Even then the Appellate Court should have only dismissed the RCA on default and he was not expected to pass any order on merits. The appellant/tenant could have filed an application to get such order set aside and for rehearing the appeal by the court but such an application was not filed by her and straight away, this revision has been filed. 9. The appellant/tenant could have filed an application to get such order set aside and for rehearing the appeal by the court but such an application was not filed by her and straight away, this revision has been filed. 9. The learned senior counsel for the landlord would submit that in the event of this court setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.04.2010, the tenant should file an application accompanied by an affidavit explaining and expounding the delay on her part in appearing before the court and getting the appeal argued by her Advocate. No doubt, technically that might be correct but inasmuch as already the revision has been filed and the learned counsel for the tenant would submit convincingly that soon after dismissing the unnumbered I.A for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on 22.04.2010, immediately thereafter on the next day itself, without giving breathing time for the appellant/tenant, the order in RCA was passed, that he need not be driven to the extent of filing an application before the Appellate Authority for getting set aside the order passed on 23.04.2010 by the Appellate Authority, that straightaway, this court might grant opportunity to the revision petitioner/appellant/tenant to argue the appeal, I am of the considered view that this court itself could give opportunity to the revision petitioner to argue the appeal before the appellate authority within a time frame. 10. The Appellate Authority immediately after dismissing the unnumbered I.A for appointment of Advocate Commissioner on 22.04.2010, the very next day, i.e. on 23.04.2010 without giving any breathing time for the appellant/tenant, dismissed the appeal furnishing his own reasons. 11. Hence, I would like to set aside the order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority in RCA No.10 of 2009 and give one more opportunity to the tenant/revision petitioner herein to argue the appeal. Whereupon, the landlord/respondent herein also can reply, and after hearing both sides, it is for the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned judgment as per law within a time frame of the months’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly and the CRP NPD No.1812 of 2010 is allowed. Point No.2:- 12. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly and the CRP NPD No.1812 of 2010 is allowed. Point No.2:- 12. The contention as put forth on the side the tenant that the Advocate Commissioner has to visit the demised premises as well as the neighbouring building belonging to K.K.Residency, in my opinion, is not proper for the reason that a mere perusal of the records would give a picturesque description about the location of the buildings concerned. In fact, even while submitting his arguments, the learned counsel for the tenant produced a few photographs of the two buildings and also argued with reference to the depositions available on record. 13. What I could understand from the evidence concerned is that originally the building belonging to K.K.Residency and the building, which belonged to one Muthu Subramaniam, were situated side by side, in fact, without any gap whatsoever. Indubitaly and indisputably, the said building belonging to Muthu Subramaniam was purchased by K.K.Residency partnership and the adjacent shop in the now purchased building actually was demolished and thereby it appears as though there is a gap between the two buildings. Over that gap, an over bridge was constructed admittedly, within two years after 2002, the year in which K.K.Residency purchased the said property from Muthu Subramaniam. It is not found spelt out in the evidence that the said over bridge was constructed only for the purpose of artificially giving an impression as though the two buildings are one and the same. On hearing both sides, the admitted position is that after such purchase from Muthu Subramaniam, K.K.Residency arranged their affairs in such a manner that any one who wants visit the Malabar Restaurant, which is an eating place has to enter the main building belonging to K.K.Residency and pass through the said over bridge and enter into the Malabar Restaurant. In my considered opinion, the over all circumstances, which are found detailed and delineated supra, would clearly evince and evidence that after purchasing the building from Muthu Subramaniam, K.K.Residency made certain modifications and admittedly, the separate stair case, which was there in that building for having ingress and egress to the first floor of that building was demolished and the said over bridge, which was newly constructed is the only way for ingress and egress to that Malabar Restaurant, which is being run in the first floor of the building purchased from Muthu Subramaniam. 14. 14. As such, in my considered opinion, in view of the picturesque description available on record, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is totally not required wherefore, there is no necessity to set aside the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the appellate authority. Accordingly, Point No.2 is decided. Point No. 3: 15. In the result, (i) CRP NPD No.1812 of 2010 is allowed and the order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside. The RCA No.10 of 2009 is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to give due opportunity to both sides to put forth their case. Whereupon, the Appellate Authority shall pass a reasoned order as per law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The CRP NPD No.2119 of 2010 filed as against the order dated 22.04.2010 in dismissing the unnumbered IA for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.