1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO1017 OF 2011 ZOHAIR HUSSAIN ABDUL HUSSAIN ..VS.. ANAND MADANMOHAN JAISWAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P.A. Markandeywar, advocate for the petitioner CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: MARCH 01 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the District Judge, Nagpur on 6.12.2010, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for appointment of the Commissioner. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent for a decree of possession on the ground that the landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide occupation. It was the case of the petitioner before the first appellate court that during the pendency of the appeal, the landlord had leased out certain vacant premises to the tenant. It was also the case of the petitioner that the landlord had ample accommodation available with him and he did not bonafide require the premises for his occupation. For purpose of proving these facts, the petitioner sought the appointment of the commissioner. The application was strongly opposed by the respondent. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties, by the impugned order 2 dated 6.12.2010, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 6.2.2010 appears to be just and proper as in this case the first appellate court rightly observed that the appointment of the Commissioner was not for the purpose of elucidating the facts of the matter in dispute. The first appellate court rightly held that there was nothing to be explained and the appointment of the commissioner would be merely with a view to collect the evidence when the burden of producing the same lay on the petitioner. The first appellate court rightly held that if the respondent had leased out certain premises during the pendency of the proceedings, it was for the petitioner to establish the said fact. The first appellate court rightly held that it was not a fit case for appointment of the commissioner and hence the application filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed. The judgment reported in 2001(2) R.C.R. Rent Control Reporter Page 711 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. For the reasons aforesaid the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP