Madras High Court
M/S.Sopos Technology Pvt. Ltd vs Mrs.Pushpavalli Suresh Babu on 20 June, 2022
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(PD).No.1557 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.7880 of 2022
M/s.Sopos Technology Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep by its Director,
Mr.Balamurugan
Plot. No.30, Old No.5, New No.9,
Sundar Nagar - 1st Avenue,
Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600 032. ... Petitioner
..Vs..
Mrs.Pushpavalli Suresh Babu ... Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the order passed in M.P.No.3 of 2022 in
RLTOP.No.510 of 2020 dated 22.03.2022, XVI Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan
For Respondent : Mr.P.B.Ramanujam
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 22.03.2022 made in M.P.No.3 of 2022 in RLTOP.No.510 of 2020.
2.The revision petitioner is the respondent in the miscellaneous petition and tenant in the main proceedings. The respondent is the landlady who has filed the Original Petition for eviction. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent/landlady has filed a petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the demised premises along with an Engineer and a Surveyor and the same was allowed. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner/tenant has preferred this revision petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner cannot be made for the purpose of securing evidence and that too, at the initial stage of the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022 proceedings. The further submission is that, only after letting in evidence and making prima-facie grounds or creating doubts in the mind of the Court about the existing facts on the ground, the request for appointment of Advocate Commissioner can be made. In support of his contentions, the following judgments of this Court are cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner:
(i)1996 (1) CTC 229 [A.Nagarajan Vs. A.Madhanakumar] and the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follow:
5.For the purpose of elucidating facts in respect of any matter in dispute means where the circumstances render it expedient in the interest of justice to do so, the court has power, which is discretionary in nature, to appoint Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining, to make it clear, intelligible and to throw light upon the matter in issue, means the main dispute as well as he facts leading to the dispute. This course may be adopted after the examination of the party or parties of suo motu. If the court feels that clarification or confirmation is necessary on certain aspects on which the Court entertains doubt in the matters in issue 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022 or dispute, or the disputed questions of fact, for the purpose of ascertaining, clarification, or for proper scrutiny and examination, this course can be restored to. In P.Moosa Kutty, In re /mANU/TN/0301/1953, this Court has held in any event, an application under this rule must be made before the case is closed. In this view of the matter, appointment of a Commissioner can be restored to Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam MANU/TN/0133/1986 :
AIR1986Mad33, this Court has taken the view that the party has got a right to place evidence which he could require to substantiate his case before the Court and, of course, subject to the law of evidence and the Code, and it is the duty of the Court to receive such evidence, unless there are other justifiable factors in law to decline to receive such evidence. The evidence so collected through the Commissioner may be used to elucidate a point which may otherwise be left in doubt or ambiguity on record. The Commissioner in effect is a projection of the Court appointed for a particular purpose.”
(ii)2010 (4) LW 318 [Rabiya Basheer Ali Vs. C.Devandra Prased]
(iii)MANU/TN/1854/1998 [Gopal Chettiar Vs. P.A.A.Sahul Hameed] 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022
4.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even the terms of the lease deed would show that the landlady has reserved the right of entry into the premises and he further submitted that, as per Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, (TNRRRLT ACT) also, the landlady can have entry into the premises with previous notice to the tenant. He further submitted that even when the respondent/landlady tried to enter the premises after giving notice, she was not allowed to enter into the premises by demanding an order of the Court; the learned trial Judge is right in allowing the petition and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5.The fact that the petition has been filed for evicting the revision petitioner is not in dispute. The relationship between the parties is also not denied. The terms of tenancy has also been reduced into writting by way of a tenancy agreement. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is a clause in the lease deed, which 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022 would entitle the right of entry of the landlady into the premises. In the affidavit of the respondent in the petition seeking for an appointment of Commissioner, it is stated that the premises is not under the occupation and in view of that, the properties in the premises were stolen. In this connection, a Police complaint has also been lodged and it is registered in C.S.R.No.42 of 2022, Nandambakkam Police Station. When the Police along with the respondent went to the spot to inspect the premises, that was also challenged by the petitioner.
6.In the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is observed about the petitioner's counter affidavit and e-mail exchange, wherein he has stated that if the landlady wanted to inspect the property, she should get appropriate orders from the Court. Only if the petitioner allows the landlady to inspect the property in order to find out, whether any of the properties have been stolen from the premises. If that was allowed, there will not be any necessity for the respondent to pray for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022
7. It is true that in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the appointment of the Commissioner cannot be sought at the initial stage, but at the stage where the necessity is established through the materials produced at the time of trial. But it is pertinent to note that these judgments have been rendered prior to coming into force of the TNRRRLT Act and in the present Act i.e TNRRRLT Act, there is a statutory permission given to the landlords to make entry into the premises, provided 24 hours notice is given to the tenant.
8.Having got information about the theft into premises, the landlady of this case lodged a Police complaint and only thereafter, she attempted to inspect the premises. So, there is no mala-fide intention on the part of the landlady to make entry into the demised premises and inspect it. Lodging of the Police complaint would show there is prima facie doubts about the location of the premises and that needs to be cleared by fullfiling an inspection of the premises. Even in Nagarajan's 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022 case, it is held that the appointment of a Commissioner should be sought only at a later stage of proceedings, is not a general rule. Allowing the landlady to inspect the premises along with the Commissioner and Engineer/Surveyor, will not in any way prejudice the interest of the petitioner. As the premises are in tact and the properties attached to the premises are also available, the learned trial Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with the situation in the present case. Hence, I find no reason for interference.
9.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order of the learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 22.03.2022 made in M.P.No.3 of 2022 in RLTOP.No.510 of 2020, is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.06.2022 vkr Index:Yes No Speaking Order:Yes/No 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022 To
1.The XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1557 of 2022 R.N.MANJULA,J.
vkr C.R.P.(PD).No.1557 of 2022 20.06.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis