Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan vide which the application of the petitioner tenant under Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for appointment of the local commissioner for inspection of the premises in question was rejected.

2. A rent petition came to be filed by the respondent-landlord on the grounds of default as well as personal and bona fide necessity. The said rent petition was decreed against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default. Aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant filed the appeal against the decree of eviction before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant moved an application under Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001" hereinafter) before the Appellate Tribunal for appointment of the Local Commissioner in order to ascertain that the respondent-landlord had four vacant plots i.e. Plot Nos. 17-A, 18, 19-A & 20 and the business of the respondent-landlord is running under the name and style of M/s Jodhpur Tubes since last more than 10 years.

3. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant on the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shanker Lal v. Narbada Shankar & ors. reported in 2010(1) DNJ (Raj.) 343 wherein the Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the status of the mines for the purpose of granting injunction. Similarly, the judgment rendered in the case of Tara Devi (Smt.) v. Rent Tribunal, Ajmer & anr. reported in 2011 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 13 was also referred to drive home the point that the Rent Tribunal is having power to regulate its own procedure which include even appointment of a Commissioner.

4. There is no dispute with the observations made in the judgments rendered in the case of Shanker Lal (supra) and Tara Devi (supra). There is also no doubt that the application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 can be filed at any stage. However, each case has to be taken on its own facts. In the present case, the ground of personal and bona fide necessity of the suit premises was already decided against the respondent-landlord. It is the respondent-landlord who filed his cross-objections in the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant against the findings of default in payment of rent.

5. Learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Parmeshwari Devi (Smt.) v. Addl. Civil Judge, Bikaner & ors. reported in 2008(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1506 rejected the application for appointment of the Commissioner by taking note of the fact that the relevant documents and photographs of the site had already been produced and therefore, a Commissioner cannot be appointed just to collect the evidence to help one of the two parties.

6. Similarly, learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and another v. M/s Kripal Industries Raisingh Nagar reported in RLW 1998(2) Raj 773 while dealing with the object of Order 26, Rule 9 & 10 of C.P.C. as well as Rule 67 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 held in Para 17 and 18 as under :-

"17. A perusal of the provisions contained in Rule 9 and 10 of Order 26 goes to show that the trial court is vested with the discretion to appoint Commissioner but such discretion should not be exercised where the point which is required to be referred to the Commissioner can conveniently be substantiated by the parties by evidence at the trial. Rule 67 of the General Rules (Civil) 1986, explains the scope of Order 26, Rule 9 C.P.C. In Orissa, Punjab and Haryana and Kerala there is no such rule and the ratio of case law cited by Mr. Nagori, learned counsel for the plaintiff, is not applicable in the case on hand. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submission of Mr. Nagori, the learned counsel, that Rule 67 is ultra vires."

18. Subscribing the view of Orissa High Court in Basante Kumar v. Baidya