1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1737 OF 2010 Shekhar Narayan Shetty and others Petitioners versus Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie Respondent Vivek Kantawala with Ms.Sneha Nanandkar i/by Vivek Kantawala for petitioners. D.A.Chhapgar i/by M/s.D.J.Kamdin & Co. for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th March 2010 PC : 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the defendants have taken an exception to the order passed by the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus :- "Revision Application No.284 of 2007 is hereby allowed and impugned judgment and order passed in Int. Notice No.955 of 2006 in RAE Suit No.690/1260 of 1999 is set aside and the said notice is allowed, and the plaintiff along with his architect is permitted to inspect the suit premises and to take measurement of unauthorized additions and alterations in the suit premises pending the suit, if any, by giving appropriate prior intimation well in advance to the respondents." 2 2. The respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent has filed the suit against the petitioners under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Basically the grounds of eviction are change of user and carrying out additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is already a Court Commissioner appointed in the year 1999 whose report is on record. He submitted that after the said report was filed, the respondent applied for appointing an Architect to visit the suit premises and to submit his report. The said application was rejected way back in the year 2002 and the said order was not challenged. He submitted that the report of the Court Commissioner is on record and there is no warrant to pass the impugned order. 4. The ground pleaded in the suit for eviction is that the petitioners have allegedly carried out illegal additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises. The effect of the impugned order is that the Architect appointed by the respondent-landlord has been permitted to inspect the suit premises. It is obvious that the Architect is not appointed under the impugned order as a Court Commissioner. If the Architect visits the suit premises, the report submitted by the Architect will not be admissible in evidence as a report of the Court Commissioner and it will be for the respondent to examine the Architect as a witness. There is no prejudice to the respondent. There is no reason to interfere in exercise of 3 power of superintendence with the discretionary order passed by the Appeal Bench of Court of Small Causes. The writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)