Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 1.12.15 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Churu, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 21(3) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") to appoint Commissioner for local investigation, stands rejected.

2. The petitioner preferred a petition seeking eviction of the respondent from the rented premises inter-alia on the ground of material alteration. The petitioner alleged that at the time of letting out of the premises, there was a chabutara covered by tin shed but the same was removed by the respondent and the place covered by the chabutara was included in the shop by putting shutter.

3. After completion of the evidence of the parties, the petitioner preferred an application before the Rent Tribunal for appointment of the Commissioner for site inspection. The application was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 12.12.13. The legality of the said order was questioned by the petitioner by way of writ petition before this court, however, before the decision of the writ petition, the rent petition was decided by the Rent Tribunal and therefore, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition with liberty to raise the issue in this regard before the Appellate Rent Tribunal.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Tribunal dismissing the petition seeking eviction, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner preferred an application before the Appellate Rent Tribunal for appointment of Commissioner for site inspection. The application stands rejected by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that for just and proper decision of the matter, it is absolutely necessary to obtain the report of the Commissioner after site inspection. Learned counsel submitted that keeping in view the discrepancy in the deposition of NAW 1 and NAW 3, the position needs to be clarified by way of site inspection report. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in observing that the material alteration, if any, could have been proved by the petitioner by producing the evidence.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

7. It is true that if at any stage of the suit, the court comes to the conclusion that for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, local investigation is required, it can always issue a commission for such investigation. But, in no case the Commissioner can be appointed for local investigation so as to collect evidence for party to the proceedings.

8. In the instant case, it was always open for the petitioner to produce the evidence to establish that the respondent has effected material alteration in the disputed premises. The existence of any discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses produced on behalf of the respondents, cannot be a ground for appointment of the Commissioner for local investigation. Obviously, the effect of the discrepancies, if any, in the deposition of the witnesses produced on behalf of the respondents and the evidentiary value thereof shall be considered by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. But, in any case, the power to appoint Commissioner for local investigation cannot be invoked so as to fill up the lacuna, if any, in evidence led by the parties.

9. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.