M/S.Sopos Technology Pvt. Ltd vs Mrs.Pushpavalli Suresh Babu
2022 Latest Caselaw 10502 Mad

                                                                         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

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

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]

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis