IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH (30TH) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.215 of 2010 Between: M/s New Moti Café, Bar and Restaurant Hyderabad … Petitioner And: Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.215 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 11.12.2009 in IA No.442 of 2009 in OS No.5623 of 2005 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner is the tenant in the schedule premises bearing House No.5-8-211/2, Nampally X Roads, near Railway station, Nampally, Hyderabad, having taken the same on lease for carrying of business in the name and style of ‘M/s New Moti Café, Bar and Restaurant’ from the respondent-MCH on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.250/- and further enhanced to Rs.500/- with effect from 01.04.1991. According to the petitioner, the respondent stopped receiving the rents from October 2002 onwards and the respondent issued notice on 11.08.2005 and questioning the same, the petitioner filed the suit. The eviction was sought on the ground that the building is lacking structural stability as per the technical report and the same is not habitable any more. The Municipal Corporation closed the Sarai building for travelers/visitors in the year 2004 and proposed to construct multi purpose complex. According to the petitioner, the subject matter of the suit is not abutting to the old Sarai Building, but is situated within the compound wall of Sarai building and it is a separate one with open space of 20 ft. in between. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit premises with the assistance of a retired Executive Engineer so as to assess the age and strength of the suit building. 4. The respondent-MCH filed counter opposing the application on the ground that the present application is filed with a view to gather evidence and the petition having been filed at a belated stage is frivolous and vexatious. 5. The respondent-MCH issued notice of eviction on the ground that the suit premises in occupation of the petitioner is no longer habitable and unfit as a human dwelling due to lack of structural stability. The petitioner contends that the suit building is away from the Sarai building. The petitioner however seeks appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit building and estimate the age, strength and structural viability of the suit building with the assistance of a technical expert, like a retired engineer. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the question as to whether or not the suit building is adjacent to Sarai building, which is admittedly 100 years old, as contended by the respondent-MCH or the two buildings are situated away from each other, is a matter that can be considered during the course of trial, even without opinion of any expert. Under the guise of local inspection, the petitioner’s real intention appears to be to gather evidence pertaining to the age and structural stability of the suit building by the report of the technical expert. 6. It is well settled that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of securing or gathering of evidence. According to the petitioner, the suit building is unconnected with the old Sarai building and therefore, the same is not liable to be removed along with Sarai building. It is for the petitioner to establish the said contention on his own and he cannot seek to collect the evidence by seeking appointment of a Commissioner for that purpose, under the guise of making local inspection. The trial Court, has therefore, rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. There are absolutely no merits in the revision. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 30.03.2011 bss