THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.2637 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 17.06.2010 passed in I.A.No.187 of 2010 in R.C.No.1 of 2009, whereunder the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein, respondent in R.C., praying to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the extent and physical features of the premises bearing No.10-3-26 situated at Fathenagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, on the ground that the respondents herein, petitioners in R.C., are alleged to have been carrying on business in the said premises in the name and style of Ganga Offset Printers. Respondents herein are the landlords and petitioner is the tenant of the premises situated in the ground floor of building bearing H.No.10-1-36 situated at Fathenagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents-landlords filed the aforesaid R.C. before the Court below, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the said premises and delivery of its possession to them, on the ground that they have expanded their business of printing works, which is being carried on in a rented premises, and thus they bona fidely require the possession of the subject premises for their business purposes and they do not own any other non-residential building, except the subject premises, for carrying on their business. The petitioner-tenant filed counter resisting the case of the respondents-landlords and he has taken a stand that the respondents- landlords are carrying on business of printing works in premises bearing No.10-3-26 at Fathenagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, and thus they do not require the possession of the subject premises. When the matter is at the stage of arguments, the petitioner- tenant filed the present I.A., seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the extent and physical features of the said premises bearing No.10-3-26, alleged to have been in occupation of the respondents-landlords. Respondents-landlords contested the said petition, by filing counter. The Court below, after detailed consideration of the matter, dismissed the petition, by the order under revision. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision and other material made available on record. A perusal of the order under revision makes it clear that both parties adduced evidence in the main petition and they have also filed documentary evidence, in support of their respective stands. When the matter is at the stage of arguments, the petitioner-tenant came up with the present application. Whether the respondents-landlords are carrying on their business in some other premises other than the subject premises or whether they bona fidely require the possession of the premises in occupation of the petitioner for their business purposes are the issues that can be decided by the Court below, by examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record, and an advocate commissioner cannot be appointed for that purpose, more so, when the matter is at the stage of arguments. Hence, I see no reasons whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 16th July, 2010 IBL