HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.4525 of 2010 Dated 07-10-2010 Between: Smt. Sarla Kamdar (died) and another. ……..Petitioner Vs. Mahender Kumar Gandhi ………Respondent HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.4525 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 17-09-2010 in I.A.No.310 of 2010 in R.C.No.540 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. 2. Originally, the respondent filed R.C.No.540 of 2007 for fixation of fair rent from Rs.55/- to Rs.3,000/- under Section 4(1) of the AP Rent Control Act in respect of the petition schedule property. During pendency of the said case, the petitioner filed I.A.No.310 of 2010 to appoint an advocate-commissioner to note down the physical features of petition schedule premises and also to ascertain the actual position of petition schedule premises. The learned Rent Controller after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, by order dated 17-09-2010, dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent failed to provide minimum amenities to the premises like water connection, attached toilet and bathroom. The entire roof has been damaged and there is a heavy leakage from the roof and therefore, before fixation of rent, it is just and necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the petition schedule property. 5. As per the provisions contained in Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the fixation of rent cannot be dealt with the commissioners who are appointed by the Courts and therefore, the Court cannot delegate its judicial function to any other authority. Observing the same, the learned Chief Judge has rightly dismissed the application by the impugned order. I do not see any error or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The petition is filed except to dragon the proceedings but not based on any tenable grounds. Hence, I do not see any merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ October 7, 2010 KVR