If no prompt actions are taken to appoint an advocate-commissioner, it may destroy the valuable rights of the parties:
In M.P. Appulu vs. A. Fatima Zohra & another, reported in 1982 (2) MLJ 340, His Lordship T.Sathiadev, J, has held that “There are circumstances in which, it is only a Commissioner inspecting the property promptly and recording timely assessment of what obtains relating to the building, could alone assist courts to decide correctly. If such prompt actions are not taken, it may destroy the valuable rights of the parties. It may so happen, when a landlord high-handedly starts pulling down a portion of the main building, the tenant would be greatly interested in securing a Commissioner appointed forthwith. If the right of tenant to have access to stair-case is obstructed, he is most interested in seeking appointment of Commissioner and secure immediate relief, for restoring amenities, which is assured to him under Section 17 of the Act.” His Lordship T.Sathiadev, J, while interpreting Section 18 (A) of the Act held that if application for appointment of Commissioner is not properly understood and appreciated and resulted in dismissal of the application; to hold that an appeal would not lie, which would result in taking away the affected party’s right, which is enshrined in the Act itself.