Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2419 (MAD)

V. C. Damodharan v. S. M. N. Sequ Abubacker

2013-07-11

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging an order made in M.P.No.541 of 2012 in R.C.A.No.382 of 2008 whereby his application, filed seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition premises and to note down the physical features and soundness of the structure, was rejected. 2. The petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.135 of 2004 filed by the landlord seeking for fixation of fair rent. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, both sides have filed their respective reports from their Engineers under Ex.P2 and Ex.R1 and taking note of those reports, an order has been passed in the R.C.O.P. Aggrieved against the said order, the appeal in R.C.A.No.382 of 2008 was filed by the tenant. Pending disposal of the R.C.A., once again the present application is filed by the tenant seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose which is stated as supra. The lower Appellate Court rejected the said application by holding that when already two reports are there under Exs.P2 and R1 filed by both the parties, there is no necessity for appointing another Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and also the soundness of the structure of the petition building. It is also pointed out by the Appellate Court that the fixation of fair rent application was filed by the landlord and the calculation are to be made based on the facts and figures available in respect to the building as on the date of filing the petition by the landlord. Accordingly, the Appellate Court rejected the application as the same is totally unwarranted. 3. I find that the order passed by the court below is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. In view of the admitted fact that there are already two reports one by the tenant and another by the landlord in respect of the building, it is for the Appellate Court to consider which report is correct and which report is wrong and based on which, it has to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. 4. When there are already two reports, there is no necessity for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to get another report. In my considered view, it is totally unwarranted. The court below has rightly rejected the application. 4. When there are already two reports, there is no necessity for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to get another report. In my considered view, it is totally unwarranted. The court below has rightly rejected the application. I find no merit in the civil revision petition and consequently, the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.