SANTOKH SINGH Vs. MAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision that has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby, the application filed by the petitioners-tenants under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the spot and to give the report concerning the number of shops in their possession, has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that respondents No.l and 2-landlords herein filed a petition under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the petitioners-tenants herein from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The said petition was contested by the petitioners. During the pendency of the rent petition, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC came to be filed by the petitioners seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the spot and to give the report concerning the number of shops in their possession, which application was contested by respondent No.l and 2 by filing their reply. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller by an order dated 03.04.2019 dismissed the said application, which order has been assailed by the petitioners-tenants in the instant civil revision.

(3.) Mr. Anil Chawla, counsel for the petitioners-tenants argues that the Rent Controller has failed to appreciate the fact that the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner was moved only to ascertain the physical possession, which is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. It is also contended that the Rent Controller has erred in observing that the application moved is an attempt on the part of the tenants to obtain the evidence on their behalf at the hands of the Local Commissioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon judgment rendered in Harvinder Kaur and another vs. Godha Ram and another, 1979 PLJ562.