K. Sivarajah vs B.K.N. Rajaram

R. Balasubramanian, J.—The tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 179/9/on the file of Rent Controller. Tiruchirapalli is the revision petitioner. The

respondent is the landlord in that case. That was a petition for fixation of fair rent filed by the landlord. The landlord had already got a report of an

engineer who had examined the property and filed his report regarding the probable fair rent. A counter has been filed in the main rent control

petition and the correctness or otherwise of the engineer''s report is under attack. At that stage the landlord filed I.A. No. 641/98 for the

appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property with the assistance of an engineer and submit a detailed

report with plan regarding the fixation of fair rent. That was opposed, but yet ordered. Hence the present revision at the instance of the tenant. I

heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Y.K. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Mr. V. Raghavachari contended that the present application is outside the scope of Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, 1960 and in any event what can be proved as a fact before the court cannot be allowed to be collected by an Advocate-

Commissioner and reproduced before the Court. In other words, actual proof in the normal course cannot be substituted by an Advocate-

Commissioner''s report. A perusal of Section 18A of the Act reveals that the Rent Controller shall have powers to appoint a Commissioner in any

proceeding pending before him and therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that in the proceeding u/s 4 of the Act the Commissioner cannot

be appointed falls to the ground. As far as the other submissions are concerned, viz., Advocate-Commissioner''s report cannot be a substitute for

actual proof, taking into account the dispute between the parties in this Fair Rent proceeding, it is always essential that the engineer''s report is

necessary. The engineer had already filed a report, but that report is under criticism probably on the ground of bias. Under these circumstances,

the landlord is cautious in having the Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the Court so that he can take an Engineer of his choice and file a

report. Under these circumstances, the order of the lower Court appointing the Advocate-Commissioner is found to be in order. No exception

could be taken to the same. Accordingly, I find no merits in this revision and it is dismissed. No costs. However, it is always said that the very

report alone would not be an evidence unless the contents of the report is spoken to by the author of the said report.