IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2701 of 2010 Between: Smt. Indira Wadhwani … Petitioner And: Mohanlal Mukund Das Malani … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2701 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.04.2010 in IA No.341 of 209 in RC No.164 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, wherein, the said application filed by the respondent herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC read with Section 31 of the Rent Control Act 1960 to appoint the Advocate-Commissioner for making local inspection, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed RC No.164 of 2006 against the petitioner seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and also willful default in payment of rents. The petitioner filed counter opposing the said application and resisted eviction on the ground that during the course of enquiry and in the cross-examination of PW.1, it was suggested on behalf of the petitioner/tenant that the landlord is having other buildings more suitable for his requirement. According to the respondent/landlord, himself and his two sons constituted as HUF, possessed two buildings, i.e., building bearing D.No.2-4-51, M.G. road and another building bearing No.2-4-133 to 139 situated at Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad and except the above two buildings, they have no other property. The respondent further pleads that the above two properties at MG Road and Ramgopalpet consists of residential and non residential portions and if the Commissioner is appointed to make local inspection of the entire building, it would meet the ends of justice to evaluate the truth and varasity of his claim of bona fide requirement. For the above said purpose the respondent/landlord filed IA No.341 of 2009. 4. The petitioner/tenant filed counter opposing the said application on the ground that the Commissioner cannot be appointed for collection of evidence on behalf of the petitioner. 5. One of the specific grounds on which the respondent/landlord seeks eviction of the petitioner/tenant is that he requires the petition schedule premises bonafide for personal occupation. The petitioner resisted the same on the ground that the respondent has got other business premises as well and they are more suitable than the petition schedule premises. It is well settled that the landlord has every right to choose particular premises for his personal occupation, which according to him is most suitable and the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord by asking him to choose some other premises in preference to the schedule premises when according to the respondent, the schedule premises alone is most suitable to him. The petitioner/tenant is disputing the same by contending that the landlord is having two other buildings as well and he can choose either of them in preference to the schedule premises. According to the respondent/landlord, the schedule premises, which is malgi is also part of the building situated in Ramgopalpet bearing D.No.2-4-132 to 139 and the said malgi alone, is most suitable to him. In order to substantiate his contention, he seeks appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the schedule premises and also other buildings, which are pointed by the petitioner as a suitable alternative accommodation so that he can establish before the Court as to why and how the schedule premises alone is suitable to him. 6. It is to be noted that the Commissioner would merely inspect the premises and make a note of their location and other relevant topographical features and take measurements, if necessary and place an objective report before the Court, without evaluating the relevant merits or demerits in respect of various alternative premises. It is ultimately for the Court to make such an evaluation in the context of up- holding or rejecting the claim of respondent-landlord that the schedule premises alone is suitable for his personal occupation. When the petitioner/tenant specifically contended that the respondent has got alternative accommodation available, it is not understandable why the tenant should feel shy of an inspection by the Advocate Commissioner, when according to the respondent/landlord the alternative premises are not suitable to him. As rightly pointed by the learned Rent Controller, it is not a case of trying to fish out evidence in favour of either of the parties, but it is only an effort to place on record in an objective manner the typography of the schedule premises as well as other alternative premises suggested by the petitioner herself so that the Court would be in a better position to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties and arrive at just decision in the matter. 7. In ‘Gollu Venkateswara Rao & Co. vs. Bhogavalli Rajeswara Rao[1]’ while dealing with the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court held as follows: “Article 227 is not available to correct mere errors of fact or law but available only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary Court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved.” 8. In the above case also, the landlord sought appointment of the Commissioner to inspect premises and to note down the physical features and the tenants opposed the same contending that the Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence. This court held that by mere appointing the Commissioner, the Court does not decide the rights of the parties and the tenants have an opportunity to file objections and if necessary to cross-examine the Commissioner. It was further held that the Commissioner would simply note down the physical features but not say about the sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation and it is for the landlord to substantiate their plea of bona fide requirement by other evidence de hors the report of the Commissioner. In the present case also, the revision which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not sustainable, as there is no manifest error occurred on the face of the proceedings. The discretion exercised by the learned Rent Controller in appointing the Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the subject premises and to note down the physical features, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.02.2011 Bss [1] 2005(6) ALT 137