HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI C.R.P. No:1586 OF 2010 Dated: 9.7.2010 Between: H. Lalprakash ..Petitioner And Smt. M. Satyamma. .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI C.R.P. No:1586 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.3.2010 passed in I.A.No.25 of 2010 in R.C.No.80 of 2008 by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad. The revision petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in the R.C. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the R.C. The landlord filed the above RC seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that he requires the schedule premises for additional accommodation. The tenant filed the above I.A. under Section 31 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for local inspection of the petition schedule premises and under the occupation of H. Lalprakash-landlord to note down the area and existing rooms. The Court below having observed that as the main case is filed on the sole ground of additional accommodation, it is necessary to measure the accommodation, which the petitioner and the respondent are in occupation, allowed the petition appointing an advocate as Commissioner for making local inspection of the petition schedule premises and under the occupation of H. Lal Prakash-landlord to note down the area and existing rooms under the occupation of both parties. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed the present revision petition. On 2.7.2010, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent and even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent-tenant. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner- landlord that the tenant sought for appointment of an advocate- commissioner for local inspection of the petition schedule premises under occupation of Lal Prakash, the petitioner-landlord in the main RC and that the petitioner-landlord is in occupation of the premises, in which his son is doing business in the rear side of the petition schedule premises and therefore, the prayer in the above I.A. is very vague. The order impugned herein goes to show that the advocate- commissioner was appointed to measure the accommodation, which the petitioner and the respondent are in occupation. According to the counsel for the petitioner-landlord, the landlord is in occupation of the premises in the rear side of the schedule premises. Therefore, I find some force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord. Under the above circumstances, I feel that it would suffice if the order impugned is modified. Accordingly, the order impugned herein is modified to the effect that the advocate-commissioner is directed to make local inspection of the petition schedule premises shown in R.C.No.80 of 2008 alone. Subject to the above modification, the CRP is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 9th July, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI C.R.P. Nos:1586 OF 2010 09.07.2010