The court held that improvements in tenanted premises are matters of direct evidence and do not require expert evaluation.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This O.P. (R.C.) is filed by the petitioner–tenant, aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2026 dismissing I.A. No. 1 of 2026 in R.C.P. No. 8 of 2024, whereby an application was filed seeking appointment of an expert to inspect the premises and evaluate the improvements alleged to have been effected by the tenant in the tenanted premises.

2. It is noted that, in an earlier round of litigation, the tenant had approached this Court, and this Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to visit the premises and submit a re- port regarding the factual aspects of the matter. It is submitted that subsequent thereto, based on the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner approached the Rent Control Court by filing an application for appointment of an expert to inspect the premises.

3. By the impugned order, the said application has been dis-

missed by the Rent Control Court, inter alia, pointing out that the improvements made in the tenanted premises are matters of direct evidence and an expert is not competent to report regard- ing the value of the improvements for the simple reason that the expert is unaware of the original state of the building and the improvements made therein.

4. We have heard Ms. Archana P.P., learned counsel for the petitioner, at length.

5. We note that the interest of the petitioner in preserving his right to claim the value of improvements stand sufficiently pro- tected by the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to report back to court after an inspection of the relevant premises. An Advocate Commissioner had been thus appointed and report has also been filed by the Commissioner. As rightly concluded by the Rent Control Court, an expert commissioner to ascertain value of improvements is not necessary as the improvements made, if any, is a matter of direct evidence. We find no perversity or ille- gality in the said reasoning arrived at by the Rent Control Court. The reasoning arrived at by the learned Rent Controller in the impugned order is thus valid and does not warrant any interfer-

ence.

6. This O.P.(RC) is dismissed.

Sd/-