The report of the Commissioner appointed under Section 18-A of the Rent Control Act is legal evidence and the court can treat the report as part of the records or mark the report in evidence without examining the Commissioner as a witness.

In both these Revisions, tenant is the revision petitioner. Both the cases were filed by the same landlord on the allegation that she needs the building for immediate demolition and reconstruction. It is her case that the building is old and dilapidated, that it is more than 60 years old, and that she has the necessary means to reconstruct the building. It is also stated that she has deposited the necessary fees before the Local Authority towards demolishing charges. She has also given an undertaking that she will put up the construction within a very short period as provided under the Statute.

2. The counter petitioner in both the cases is the same. He has raised a common contention that there is no bona fide in the claim of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction. According to the tenant, there were prior proceedings between the parties, where in one case eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default, and in another, fixation of fair rent was sought for. According to the counter-petitioner, in the petition seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default, the landlady failed, and in the other which was for fixation of fair rent, the decision was not in favour of the landlady though there was a marginal increase in the rent. According to the counter petitioner, the building is in good condition, and he himself has made the necessary changes so as to strengthen the building, and therefore, it does not require any reconstruction.

3. Both the Authorities below held that the claim of the landlady is bona fide and also found that she has satisfied all the conditions provided under the Statute. Eviction was, therefore, ordered. The concurrent findings are challenged before this Court.

4. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing on both sides that the primary question to be decided is, the physical condition of the building in a case where eviction is sought for demolition and reconstruction.

5. Exx.P-11, R-2 and P-21 are the three Reports filed in this case. Exx.P-11 and R-2 are the Reports that were filed in the earlier case for fixation of fair rent. The authors of these two documents have been examined in this case and the Authorities below were reluctant to accept those Reports. At any rate, Exx.P-11 and R-2 are by the same person, and, from a reading of his oral evidence, it is clear that the findings of the Authorities below are in any way incorrect. We are only concerned with Ex.P-21, which is the Report filed by P.W.3 in this case. That Report was accepted by the Authorities below. Serious objection was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the acceptability of Ex.P-21. It is a report filed in Court not under Orders of Court, but on the request of the landlady. The circumstances under which he prepared the Report are not in evidence. Of course, in the Report Ex.P-21, he sates that the counter-petitioner was also present when he made the inspection. Since it is a Report obtained at the instance of the landlady, naturally, he has to support the same, and even his oral evidence is not very much convincing. It is not a Commissioner’s Report as enjoined under Law. It is only a Report made by P.W.3 regarding his inspection. Ex.P-21 was also not put to the tenant in this case, nor their objections called for. The Rent Control Act provides for the issue of a commission and get a report after local inspection. The said power was given to the Rent Control Court by virt ue of an amendment by incorporating section 18-A in the Act. The purpose of incorporating the section is very clear. When there are two Reports by two person claiming themselves to be experts and the Reports are conflicting, it will be difficult for the court to arrive at the correctness of the same. Both the Reports will be filed in Court at the instance of either party, and so it cannot be treated as impartial. It was under such circumstance, the Act was amended incorporating Section 18-A of the Act. By incorp