V.Jothiramalingam, v. M.Shanmugam (Died),
C.R.P(MD).No. 667 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:15.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR C.R.P(MD) No.667 of 2021 and C.M.P(MD) No.3644 of 2021 V.Jothiramaling ...Petitioner/ Petitioner/Appellant/Tenant Vs.
M.Shanmugam (died) Rep., by Lrs 1.S.Veerammal 2.R.Selvi 3.S.Muthukumaran ...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents/Landlord PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) to set aside the order dated 09.03.2021 made in I.A.No.212 of 2017 in R.C.A.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli and allow the above Civil Revision petition. For petitioner : Mr. P.Thiyagarajan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.212 of 2017 in R.C.A.No.18 of 2010, dated 09.03.2021 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dismissing the application filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. 2.It is not in dispute that the deceased first respondent has filed an application in R.C.O.P.No.105 of 2005, on the file of the Rent Controller, Trichy, seeking eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. After enquiry, eviction was ordered. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the revision petitioner/tenant has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.18 of 2010, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirchy and the same is pending. 3.
During the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner has filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property and its appurtenance as to note down the physical futures, electric service connections and occupancy. After enquiry, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.
C.R.P(MD).No. 667 of 2021 passed the impugned order dated 09.03.2021, dismissing the said application. The revision petitioner has sought for appointment of Commissioner to show that more vacant space is available in the petition mentioned property that there was no electricity supply and that he is running the shop with the help of a power generator. 4.It is the case of the landlord that since the revision petitioner has not paid the electricity charges, the same was disconnected and moreover, Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to show that the shop of the revision petitioner is running with the help of a power generator. The RCOP was filed in the year 2005 and the Rent Control Appeal is pending from 2010 onwards, for the past 11 years.
5.As rightly observed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority the above petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings. Hence, this Court is not inclined to admit the revision petition. But at the same time the revision petitioner is at liberty to produce the documents to prove that he has been using the power generator and for disconnection of the electricity supply by filing necessary application before the Appellate Court and if such a petition is filed, the Court is required to consider the same in accordance with law.
6.With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Rent Control Appellate Authority/ Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
+1 CC to M/s.P.THIYAGARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-15971[F] dated 16/04/2021 ) C.R.P(MD) No.667 of 2021 15.04.2021 RP (17.05.2021) P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2