GOLLU VENKATESWARA RAO AND CO Vs. BHOGAVALLI RAJESWARARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants preferred this revision aggrieved by the order dated 11-8-2005 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in allowing the I.A.No.1063 of 2005 in RCC No. 11 of 1995 filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises where the landlords are doing business and to note down the physical features.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the case relevant for the purpose of present proceedings may be stated that respondents/ landlords filed the above RCC for eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement in which on conclusion of the trial, arguments were heard on 2-11-2001 and posted for further arguments. At that stage landlords filed two applications- I.A. Nos.2359 and 2633 of 2001 to re-open the RC and to re-call P.W.1 for further examination and they were allowed on 27-4-2002. Later I.A. No.133 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner/tenants under Order XIII Rule 2 CPC to receive certain documents to substantiate their contention, namely, landlords are in possession of several properties where they are doing their business and do not require suit schedule premises for bona fide requirement. On dismissal of the said application petitioners/tenants carried the matter in revision -C.R.P. No.449 of 2004 under Article 227 of the Constitution, wherein this Court allowed the revision and remitted the matter to the lower Court with a direction to the lower Court to permit the petitioners/tenants to take all such further steps in furtherance of rebuttal evidence, and the petitioners/tenants also filed I.A. No.135 of 2004 to receive further chief-examination of the tenants which was allowed to which they were sufficiently cross-examined. Later landlords filed impugned I.A. for appointment of Commissioner. In spite of tenants contesting the same the lower Court allowed the application appointing Advocate Commissioner only to note down the physical features of the premises where the respondents/landlords and his family members are carrying business in the schedule premises mentioned in the said I.A.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/ tenants vehemently argued that Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence, except to note down the physical features. When the arguments are heard in RCC on 2-11-2001 and posted for reply arguments on 5-11 -2001, landlords filed two applications to re-open the case and re-call P.W.1, which were allowed. After the landlords examined the tenants (sic.), petitioners/tenants led their evidence. When the matter is taken up for arguments, the above I.As. are filed to gather the evidence, which is impermissible in law and placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Arredla Ram Reddy v. Arredla Alivelamma