FAKIR CHAND Vs. DEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Fakir Chand filed an ejectment petition against the respondent Deep Chand before the Rent Controller, Ambala City. One of the grounds for ejectment was that the respondent by installing an electric motor for extracting sugarcane juice in the tenancy premises had impaired the value and utility of the property. On the request of the petitioner, the Rent Controller appointed a local Commissioner on 23rd of April, 1984, for spot inspection. The local Commissioner submitted his report on 8th of May, 1984. The Rent Controller was not satisfied with this report. Therefore, he appointed a fresh local Commissioner on 22nd of November, 1984, to visit the spot to ascertain the actual position. The petitioner filed a review petition dated 29th of November, 1984, against this order stating that the crushing of sugarcane is only a seasonal business and it is possible that the respondent may have removed the electric motor by the time the new local Commissioner visited the spot. It was, therefore, prayed that the order regarding the appointment of a fresh local Commissioner may be revoked. The Rent Controller vide the impugned order dated 16th of January, 1985, dismissed the review application on the ground that the second local Commissioner had already visited the spot and had submitted the report. It was observed in the order that in such circumstances the report of the accused local Commissioner will be considered at the appropriate stage of the trial. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against this order of the Rent Controller.

(2.) It is no doubt true that in view of the judgment of this Court in Chaudhary Ishwar Singh v. Chaudhury Dial and another, 1977 2 RentLR 367, the Rent Controller should have appointed a fresh local Commissioner only after the setting aside of the report of the earlier local Commissioner. However, since the second local Commissioner has already visited the spot and submitted the report. I find no cause to interfere with the impugned order of the Rent Controller in revisional jurisdiction because neither any irreparable injury has been caused to the petitioner nor it would occasion failure of justice. A similar situation arose in Chhotu Mauju v. Gurbhajan Singh, 1972 AIR(P&H) 265, and it was held that if rightly or wrongly more than one commissions are issued for local investigation in respect of the same matter, the Court has no jurisdiction to exclude from the evidence in the case any one of the reports submitted by the Commissioners. In the present case also, in which identical situation has arisen, the value of the two reports as pieces of evidence will have to be judged by the Rent Controller while deciding the main issue in the same manner as the other evidence on the record to the case has been appraised.

(3.) Taking this view, the instant revision petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No order as to costs.