Judgment :- 1. The tenant/ respondent in R.C.O.P No.1890 of 2011 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai is the revision petitioner. The respondent/ landlord filed the above petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent after the examination of PW1 was over. The respondent/ landlord filed a memo before the learned Rent Controller seeking for permission to engage the services of Mr.Ajeez Mohideen, Engineer to inspect the petition premises and file his report and that memo was contested by the revision petitioner/ tenant and the learned Rent Controller granted permission to the respondent/ landlord to engage the Engineer for inspection of the petition premises after giving notice to the tenant. That order is challenged in this revision. 2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan for the revision petitioner/ tenant raised three objections regarding the maintainability of the memo filed by the respondent/ landlord and also the manner in which that memo was dealt with by the learned Rent Controller. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the respondent/ landlord has stated in the chief examination that the respondent/ landlord has got the report of the Engineer and on that basis the application for fair rent was filed and therefore when the respondent/ landlord has already got the report of the Engineer, there was no need for the respondent/ landlord to engage another Engineer to inspect the petition premises and therefore the petition is not maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it has been stated in the petition that they want to examine Mr. Ajeez Mohideen, Engineer as PW2 and the petition premises has to be inspected by Mr.Ajeez Mohideen and to file a report and it amounts to gathering evidence in the suit which is not permissible and on that ground also the memo filed by the respondent/ landlord ought to have been rejected. He further submitted that if at all the respondent/ landlord wants to engage an Engineer to inspect the property they will have to file an affidavit petition for appointment of Engineer to inspect the property. 3. According to me, the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel are all purely technical in nature. He further submitted that if at all the respondent/ landlord wants to engage an Engineer to inspect the property they will have to file an affidavit petition for appointment of Engineer to inspect the property. 3. According to me, the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel are all purely technical in nature. As rightly held by the learned Rent Controller that being the Rent Controller the procedure is only summary in nature and there is no need to insist upon filing of an affidavit petition for appointment of Engineer. Further, the general rule that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence cannot be applied in an application for fixation of fair rent. It is well known principle that in an application for fair rent the Court is guided by the reports of the Engineer submitted by both parties and fair rent is fixed on the basis of the market value of the property and also on the basis of the nature of construction and depreciation of the building as stated in the Engineer's report. To ascertain the market value of the property, the parties can lead evidence by filing the sale deeds of the adjacent properties, for the purpose of arriving at the value of depreciation of the building and nature of construction, the Engineer's report will help the Court to decide the same. Further, normally in an application for fair rent the petitioner would have got the report of the engineer before filing of the petitioner and that Engineer will be examined on his side later and his report will be marked. In this case though it has been stated in the chief examination of PW1 that on the basis of the report of the Engineer the application was filed for fair rent, admittedly the report of the Engineer was not filed along with the petition. In the memo it has been stated that they want to examine Mr. Ajeez Mohideen, Engineer as PW2 and that Engineer has to inspect the petition premises and file a report and for that purpose they sought permission of the Court to engage the Engineer to inspect the petition premises. In the memo it has been stated that they want to examine Mr. Ajeez Mohideen, Engineer as PW2 and that Engineer has to inspect the petition premises and file a report and for that purpose they sought permission of the Court to engage the Engineer to inspect the petition premises. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Nationalized Bank which has taken the premises on lease and therefore proper course open the respondent is to seek permission of the Court to permit its Engineer to inspect the property and file a report to substantiate its case for fair rent and that was properly appreciated by the Court below. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel that by allowing the Engineer to inspect the property and file a report the learned Rent Controller allowed the respondent/ landlord to gather evidence cannot be accepted and as stated supra in all the cases of fair rent the Courts are fixing the fair rent on the basis of the Engineer's report and on the basis of the market value of the property. 4. Hence, the Court below has rightly allowed the memo and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below and the revision is dismissed. However, the respondent/ landlord is directed to give prior intimation to the revision petitioner/ Bank by indicating the name of the Engineer and the date on which the proposed inspection is to be conducted. On receipt of the same, the revision petitioner/ Bank is directed to give permission to the Engineer appointed by the respondent/ landlord to inspect the property and the Engineer appointed by the respondent/ landlord is directed to inspect the property without causing any hindrance to the working of the petitioner/Bank. The Engineer is also directed not to take any photographs inside the premises. 5. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.