JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J. :--By this petition under Article 227, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay, granting respondent's notice for inspection of the flats situated on the second and third floor of the suit building, which are not subject-matter of the suit. Apparently, the Small Causes Court has taken recourse to provisions of Order 39, Rule 7(a) of the C.P.C. The short question is whether the Lower Court was right in granting inspection of premises, which are not the subject-matter of the suit and are in possession of third parties.

2. Before I deal with the rival contentions, I would like to state briefly the facts leading to this petition, which are few and almost undisputed. The petitioner is the owner of the building known as "Fair Field Annexe" situated at Veer Savarkar Marg, Mahim, Bombay. The respondent is the tenant of flat No. 3 on the second floor of the said building. The petitioner has filed R.A.E. R. Suit No. 1504/5511 of 1982 against the respondent for possession on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondent has filed R.A.N. No. 437/S.R. of 1982 for fixation of standard rent. Both these proceedings are being heard together by the order of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court.

3. The respondent has taken out Notice No. 2031 of 1995 for allowing the respondent and his architect and authorised agent to enter upon and take inspection of two flats, namely flat No. 6 on the second floor and flat No. 7 on third floor, which are admittedly not the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Small Causes Court. According to the respondent, such inspection is necessary for the purpose of determining the controversy between the parties about the standard rent of the suit flat No. 3, which is the subject-matter of the suit. It is the case of the respondent that the landlord himself was in occupation in respect of one of these two flats and he was paying rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month. It is said that the area of the said flats is equal to the suit flat and, therefore, the standard rent of the suit flat should be the same i.e. Rs. 1,000/- per month. The respondent says that in order to establish the area and location of these flats are identical, an inspection is necessary.

4. The petitioner has opposed the application vehemently on the ground that such inspection is totally uncalled for. It is contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant such inspection, since, admittedly, the two flats in question are not the subject-matter of the suit. The petitioner has also shown his willingness to supply copies of the sanctioned plans of the building. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the order of inspection should not be passed.

5. By an order dated June 16, 1995, the Small Causes Court has made the notice taken out by the respondent absolute. It is necessary to reproduce the operative part of the order of the Small Causes Court, because the Small Causes Court has issued some additional directions in order to ensure that the occupants of the said two flats should not be inconvenienced in any manner. The order reads :

"The plaintiff is directed to give inspection of the flats situated on the second floor and third floor of the suit property as prayed, on 19th May, 1995 between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 P.M.

Parties are directed to give inspection in notice in advance to both the tenants before inspecting and measuring the premises.

Defendant is also directed to supply copy of this Judgment and order to the said two tenants for completing smooth inspection, measurement of the said two flats well in advance.

Parties are directed to take the precaution that they will complete the inspection of the said two flats within about three hours by avoiding any unwarranted inconvenience to the occupants thereof."

6. Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Mr. Jahagirdar says that Rule 7(a)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document