Tenant has filed the Civil Revision Petition against the order and decreetal order dated 18.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.15 of 2009 in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruppur.
2. Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy, learned counsel appears for the caveator, the respondent landlady.
3. Respondent, the landlady filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the revision petitioner, the tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and for additional accommodation. The petition was filed in the year 2006. I.A.No.15 of 2009 has been filed by the revision petitioner, the tenant for appointment of advocate commissioner to inspect the petition premises along with a qualified engineer to assess the age of the building and the nature of construction undertaken and also to inspect the interior of the building along with a interior decorator and to file a report. This application was resisted by the respondent/landlady stating that she has produced documents to support the age and nature of building. It is also the contention of the landlady that there is no necessity for the interior decorator to inspect the petition building along with the advocate commissioner as it can be proved by records if it is available with the tenant.
4. The court below based on the series of documents filed by the respondent/landlady to show the age of the building and the nature of construction accepted the landlady's stand that there was no need to appoint an advocate commissioner. The court below further held that if huge amount has been spent by the revision petitioner/tenant for interior decoration, that would be supported by bills and receipts and the same will establish the quantum of amount spent for interior decoration and therefore, there is no need to appoint an advocate commissioner or an interior decorator for this. The court below held that ample documentary evidence is filed by the respondent/landlady and insofar as the claim of the revision petitioner/tenant is concerned, he can prove the expenditure towards interior decoration by documentary evidence. The Court below held that the appointment of advocate commissioner to assess the age of the building and nature of construction and for inspection by an interior decorator is not a genuine and bona fide plea, but filed only to prolong the litigation.
5. On going through the order of the court below and the reasons given, this court find that the court below is justified in dismissing the petition
(i) On the question of the age and nature of building constructed, if there are documentary evidence, unless it is shown that such documents do not have any relevance to the issue before the court below, the documents cannot be brushed aside. Those documents can be considered at the time of trial.
(ii) Unless there is a genuine doubt on the documents filed, the question of appointing an advocate commissioner to assess the age of the building and the nature of construction, will not arise. In this case, the documents furnished by the respondent/landlady are not in dispute.
(iii) Petitioner/tenant wants further clarification and is seeking further material by appointing an advocate commissioner. That cannot be accepted.
(iv) With regard to the assessment by the interior decorator, the court below rightly observed that whatever be the nature of interior decoration done by the tenant, it has to be supported by bills and receipts and that can be proved by the petitioner/tenant to establish his plea with regard to the quantum of expenditure met for interior decoration. That cannot be supplemented by appointing an advocate commissioner or the interior decorator. The petitioner/tenant has to show that he has spent certain amount towards interior decoration by documentary evidence. Only in case there is ambiguity or vagueness, the question of appointment of advocate commissioner or an interior decorator to inspect the property will arise.
(v) In the affidavit filed by the petitioner/tenant, except stating that huge amount has been invested for interior decoration, there is no basis shown for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to inspect the property along with the interior decorator.
(vi) The averments in the application itself is very vague and bereft of details. The Court below rightly rejected the same and this courg find no good reason to interfere with the same.
6. Finding no merits, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The Original Petition is of the year 2006. At request of both sides, the trial court is directed to dispose of the original petition at the earliest preferably before the end of December, 2009.
ts To The District Munsif, Thiruppur