IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16666 of 2010 1. Smt. Vina Devi W/O Nagendra Sah R/O Vill.- Prem Nagar, P.S.- Runisaidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi 2. Sita Ram Mahto S/O Late Laxmi Narain Mahto R/O Vill.- Marar, P.S.- Riga, Distt.- Sitamarhi Versus Siyaram Sah S/O Late Bhulan Sah R/O Vill.- Marar, P.S.- Riga, Distt.- Sitamarhi ---------------------------------- 03. 16.11.2011 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by Shri P.K. Chaudhary, Additional Munsif, Sadar, Sitamarhi in Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2005, whereby the learned court below has turned down the prayer of the defendant- petitioner for appointment of a pleader commissioner. The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), for eviction of the defendant-petitioner giving rise to Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2005. It is the contention of the petitioner that whereas the plaintiff-respondent claims a single room being part of the schedule property, in fact, there are two rooms available and thus the issue of partial eviction also arises. It is the case of the petitioner that until an investigation is carried out by the Pleader Commissioner, this issue cannot be deliberated upon. It is in these circumstances that a petition under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), was filed before the learned court below and which has since been rejected, hence the present writ petition. By the impugned order the learned court below while taking note of the fact that the nature of the suit is an eviction suit and not a title suit and that the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed on 6.8.2009, has rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The learned court below has rightly observed that as the only issue that needs to be seen in a proceeding in the nature of an eviction suit, is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and whether the plaintiff has sufficient grounds to maintain the eviction suit, he does not require any assistance of an Advocate Commissioner for resolution of such dispute. Considering the provisions as contained in Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the court below. The writ petition is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)