K.T.Sankaran, J.
The respondent filed R.C.P.No.4 of 2014, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kalpetta. With respect to the neighbouring room occupied by the same tenant, R.C.P.No.5 of 2012 is pending. In the present case, namely, R.C.P.No.4 of 2014, the reliefs prayed for are under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. A Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the landlord to inspect the building and to report about the matters mentioned in the application. The Commissioner submitted a report. The tenant filed I.A.No.901 of 2014 to appoint another Commissioner. That application was dismissed O.P.(R.C.) No.165/2014 2 by the Rent Control Court as per the order dated 9th December, 2014, which is under challenge in this O.P.(R.C.).
2. First of all in view of the Division Bench decision in
Swami Premananda Bharathi v. Swami Yogananda
Bharathi (1985 KLT 144), a second Commissioner cannot be appointed without setting aside the report of the first Commissioner. In the present case, there is no such prayer. Here the prayer is to appoint another Commissioner to make inspection and for the purpose of disproving the allegations made by the landlord. First of all, it is for the landlord to prove the ingredients of Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The tenant need not disprove the same and for that purpose, it is not necessary to appoint a Commissioner. The court below noticed that the Commissioner has already reported about the relevant facts and it is not necessary to appoint another Commissioner. It was
O.P.(R.C.) No.165/2014 3 noticed by the Rent Control Court that for the purpose of bonafide need or arrears of rent or sublease, it is not necessary to appoint a Commissioner and oral evidence can be adduced on that aspect. A Commissioner's report would be relevant only for the purpose of the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. For that purpose, there is already a report. It is not made out that the report already submitted by the Commissioner is unacceptable. The court below was justified in dismissing the application.
Accordingly, the O.P.(R.C.) is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl P.D.RAJAN JUDGE