IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.40 of 2012
Dated 09th February, 2012
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Md.Ajmal Ahmed
Counsel for the respondent: ---
The Court made the following:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 13.09.2011, in I.A.No.272 of 2010 in R.C.No.297 of 2010, on the file of the learned II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
The petitioner is the tenant of the premises owned by the respondent. The respondent filed R.C.No.297 of 2010 seeking eviction of the petitioner on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner has indulged in acts of waste and that he is not doing the business for which the premises has been let out to him. After commencement of evidence and when the case was coming up for cross-examination of PW.1, the petitioner filed I.A.No.272 of 2010 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for making local inspection to note down the physical features of the petition schedule property by taking the assistance of expert/engineer. This application was dismissed by the learned II Additional Rent Controller.
As rightly observed by the learned II Additional Rent Controller, the burden lies on the respondent to prove his allegations and that being the respondent in the RC, it is not necessary for the petitioner to seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to disprove the allegations of the respondent-landlord. Moreover, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for gathering the evidence in favour of a party. The petitioner has to adduce evidence in support of the stand taken by him.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the lower Court. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.32 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
09th February, 2012