This Revision Petition is filed by the first defendant against the order, dated 29-07-2004 in I.A.No.1097 of 2004 in O.S.No.302 of 2004 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, regarding the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from evicting him from the suit premises otherwise than in due course of law and for mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to break open the lock put to the suit premises. After ordering urgent notice in I.A.No.1090 of 2004 for the same relief, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1097 of 2004 under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to break open the locks of the suit premises to record the physical features of the said premises and to ascertain facts of the possession of the suit schedule property. The lower Court passed the following order: "Heard. In view of the circumstances stated in the affidavit in support of the petition, Mr. K.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate is appointed as Commissioner to make local inspection of the premises and to break open the lock provided petitioner is in occupation of the premises by the petitioner and to note down the physical features. His fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- payable on deposit of process. Issue warrant of commission on payment of process. Commissioner to report the proceedings and file his report by 04-08-2004."

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the first defendant preferred the present Revision on the following grounds: 1) Appointing an Advocate Commissioner ex parte to break open the locks fixed by the petitioner amounts to decreeing the suit itself; 2) No reasons have been assigned for not issuing notice to the respondent as provided under Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C. and if the Court feels to dispense with the notice, sufficient reasons have to be recorded; 3) The order passed by the lower Court amounts to interference with the rights of the petitioner to continue to be in possession as lawful owner of the property; and 4) The Commissioner exceeded his powers conferred under the warrant and delivered possession without there being an order to that effect, therefore, the lower Court ought to have directed the Commissioner to redeliver the possession in favour of the petitioner without any further enquiry.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the order of the lower Court was before service of the suit notice; that the Court felt that there was no necessity to order notice; and that there was no illegality in the order passed by the lower Court, therefore, he requested to dismiss the Revision petition.

5. The suit property is a mulgi. There is no dispute about the identity of the property. The plaintiff contended that it was originally taken by his father V. Krishna Murthy from the defendant's father on lease in or about 1967 on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-, which was enhanced from time to time. The original lessor i.e., the father of the first defendant died about 20 years back and the first defendant stepped into the shoes of the landlord and he was receiving rents from the plaintiff's father till 1989. When the plaintiff's father died, the plaintiff became the tenant and he was paying rents to the first defendant. It was further alleged that the first defendant developed a malicious intention to lease out the malgi to another person at higher rent and accordingly demanded the plaintiff for higher rent or to vacate the premises. The plaintiff refused to do so, therefore, the first defendant bent upon evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises with the help of the second defendant. On the prior day of filing of the suit, the first defendant brought the police personnel and got the door of the suit premises locked over the lock put by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for the reliefs as mentioned above.

6. The first defendant filed a wr