IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13209 of 2011 1. Bharat Book Depot At M/H Chauhatta In The House Known As Manas Bhawan In Ground Floor, P.S. Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, Distt. And Town Patna Through Its Proprietor Sri Giridhar Prasad S/O Late Durga Prasad R/O M/H Laheri Tola Bhagalpur, P.O. Bhagalpur, P.S. Bhagalpur, Town And Distt. Bhagalpur. Versus 1. Smt. Manorma Devi W/O Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Vill. And P.O. Chalaya, P.S. Bairiya, Distt. Balia At Present R/O M/H Chauhatta 9manas Bhawan), Ashok Rajpath, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Pirbahore, Distt. Patna. ---------------------------------- 02. 16.08.2011. At the very outset, the learned counsel, Mr. Dronacharya, seeks permission to insert Article 227 of the Constitution of India and delete Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the provision of law. Permission is accorded. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Dronacharya, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the Sub Judge 4th Patna in Eviction Suit No.27 of 2003 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the tenant defendant under Order 26 Rule 9 read with 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Pleader Commissioner for inspection of the house to find out location of the tenanted premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this plaintiff-respondent purchased the half portion of the tenanted premises in the year 1999 and then eviction suit was filed in the year 2003 for eviction of the petitioner from the whole suit premises - 2 - when she was not owner of the rest of the suit premises. She purchased the second half of the suit premises in 2005 and, therefore, in such circumstances unless amendment is made, the Court cannot grant the decree for eviction from the rest part of the suit premises which was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent in the year 2005. Admittedly, the petitioner is the tenant in the whole of the suit premises. The suit has been filed for eviction on the grant of 11 (1) (c) and 11(1) (d) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below considered the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant is not denied. So far the other question that the plaintiff is not the owner of the whole suit premises on the date of institution of the suit is concerned, it has got no relation with the appointment of Pleader Commissioner. If the plaintiff will not be able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant with respect to that part of the property, the suit will fail. On these grounds, the learned Court below rejected the application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner. I find no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Court below and, therefore, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)