1.The Petitioner-tenant has challenged the order of appointment of Commissioner on application filed by the Landlord under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short,"CPC").

2. The contentions are that the application filed during the cross examination of the tenant, ought not to have been allowed; the revision ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

3. The basic dispute between the landlord and the tenant is now governed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act-1999 ("Mah. Rent Act"). The relevant Section is as under:- "28:- Inspection of Premises:- The landlord shall be entitled to inspect the premises let or given on licence, at a reasonable time after giving prior notice to the tenant, licensee or occupier."

4. The landlord can take inspection of his property which is let out or given on license at a reasonable time after giving prior notice to the tenant/licensee or occupier. If that is so, there is no reason to hold that such landlord cannot take inspection at any stage of the proceeding. The requirement is of the prior notice.

5. I am of the view that the Inspection just cannot be a mere formality of a visual inspection of the premises. It is always with some purpose and intention. The landlord in a given case may take with him the competent person including architect or a person who can record the condition of the premises which includes the Commissioner appointed by the Court or such other person. Once there is a clear and specific provision provided under the Mah. Rent Act, the general provision of appointment of C.P.C. cannot be read into it to restrict the right of the Landlord to inspect the premises. There may be joint inspection also.

6. In this background, in such proceedings when the landlord moved the application for appointment of Commissioner for proper measurements and inspection of the premises, it just cannot be treated an application as contended under Order 26 Rule 1 of the CPC only.

7. In absence of Section 28, the submission as raised could have been taken note of, in view of Sanjay Namdeo Khandare Vs. Sahebrao Kachru Khandare & Ors. 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 959, but considering the scheme of Mah. Rent Act, specially the Section referred above, I see there is no reason to restrict the landlord’s right to inspect the premises though the court Commissioner as done in the present case. Such report may be subject to challenge, unless agreed or approved by the otherside.

7. Admittedly, the application was opposed by the other side. Now, therefore, the formality of proper notice to the tenant is also over. The Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, as granted such application and appointed the Commissioner, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order.

8. The orders are well within the framework of law and the record.

9. The Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.