AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 201 wordsJ.V. Gupta, Acting C.J.—This revision petition as directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated August 7, 1989, whereby the application for appointment of the local commissioner by the Rent Controller filed by the tenant was rejected.
It has been stated in the impugned order :--
"It has been pleaded that three local commissioners have already inspected the disputed property and their reports are already on the file. I have gone through the file In this case, at the first instance, on the day, when the ejectment petition was presented before the Court. Shri K. S. Malhi, Advocate, was appointed as Local Commissioner by my learned predecessor, Shri A. S. Kathuria and be had submitted his report regarding the actual and factual position at the spot of the disputed property."
Since, already local commissioner was appointed, the question of appointing further local commissioner did not arise. There is no illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the re visional jurisdiction.
Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Since further proceedings were stayed at the time of the motion hearing, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Rent Controller on February 8, 1990.