AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 256 wordsP. Sathasivam, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that the court below is not justified in dismissing his petition for appointment of second Advocate
Commissioner for inspection and report. It is not in dispute that under the orders of the Court, the Commissioner was appointed and he inspected
and submitted a report. In such circumstances, even if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the report of the Commissioner, he is free to file
his objection and in that event, the same will be considered by the Court below. As rightly pointed out by the learned Rent Controller, the Rent
Control Petition for eviction is pending from 2001 onwards. In such circumstances, there is no need to appoint another Commissioner. Further, the
parties cannot depend only on the evidence of the Commissioner. It is for them to prove their respective case by placing accepted evidence. The
Commissioner''s Report may be a piece of evidence. All the above mentioned relevant aspects have been considered by the learned District
Munsif and the learned District Munsif rightly dismissed. There is no error or infirmity in the order. The Revision fails and the same is dismissed.
Taking note of the fact that RCOP is pending from 2001, the Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The connected C.M.P. No. 7064 of 2006 is also dismissed.