K.T. Sankaran J.,

1. The respondent filed Rent Control Petition No.151 of 2011 against the petitioner before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under Sections 11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petition schedule room is occupied by the tenant and he is doing business in silver in that building. According to the landlord, a temple is situated in the ground floor of the building and the space occupied by the petition schedule room is required for the purpose mentioned in the Rent Control Petition.

2. Before filing the Rent Control Petition, a notice was issued by the landlord on 28.7.2011 [Ext.R1(a)]. In that notice, mention was made about the shrine of Sree Anjaneya housed in the building. In the reply notice sent by the tenant, there is no dispute regarding the nature of the shrine in the place. However, in the counter filed by the tenant in the Rent Control Petition, the tenant stated thus:

"There is no public or private temple inside the premises. It is only a puja room in the ground floor. Some pujas are conducted, as the members are Brahmins. This is a practice usually done in all Brahmin business establishments, as well as their homes. There is no full-fledged temple activity nor any festival or special rituals which are common and mandatory in any public temple. It is not true that the members of other Hindu community also visits the "shrine". It is frequented only by a few members of the Madhwa community. There is no religious functions conducted in the ground floor."

3. According to the landlord, the above contention raised by tenant necessitated the filing of I.A. No.3709 of 2012 to appoint a Commissioner to note the following matters:"

(i) What is the deity worshipped at the ground floor of the petition schedule building.

(ii) Are regular poojas being conducted at this temple

(iii) On how many occasions in a day poojas and Naivedyams are offered to the deity.

(iv) What are the timings for offering worship to the devotees.

(v) Are there not poojaris employed by the petitioner trust for performing poojas.

(vi) Where is the articles for offering are kept or stored? Is it under lock and key?

(vii) Where is the kitchen where Naivedyams are prepared located?

(viii) Can this kitchen be put to use by the devotees or members of Madhawa Community in connection with their functions?

(ix) Are there any boards describing the time for worship and rates which the devotees are to pay to perform poojas and offerings to the deity?

(x) Are the rituals and religious functions exclusively being performed at the ground floor?

(xi) And such other matters requested to be noted by the Commissioner?"

4. The Court below allowed I.A No.3709 of 2012, by the order dated 4.8.2012 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed.

5. The tenant submitted that he may be permitted to file a work memo before the Commissioner. He also stated that if the work memo is filed in Court in advance, there is every chance of evidence being manipulated by the landlord. The Court below held that such a contention cannot be permitted and the tenant cannot be allowed to file a work memo before the Commissioner without filing the same in Court. The order passed by the Court below in I.A. No.3709 of 2012 is challenged by the tenant to the extent to which the Court below rejected the prayer made by the tenant to file a work memo before the Commissioner.

6. Heard Shri. Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri. K.P. Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. A Commissioner appointed by the Court under Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure is expected to note the points mentioned in the Commission application. In doing so, it would not be sufficient always to say 'yes' or 'no' in respect of most of the points. Detailed narration of facts, which the Commissioner perceives at the spot, would be required in most of the cases. While doing so, the Commissioner would