the petitioner (defendant). The learned Judge observed that although according to the petitioner, the suit premises i.e. shop no.4 and the shed constructed on the east of the suit premises admeasures 10 ft. x 30 ft, however, in the evidence, the petitioner had testified that the studio premises were admeasuring 10 ft. X 20 ft. while the shed premises were admeasuring 10 ft. X 10 ft.. The learned trial Judge observed that this admittedly amounted to improvement by the defendant of his case in the evidence. In view of this inconsistency, the learned Trial Judge appointed a Commissioner to verify the measurement of the suit premises, so as to ascertain the actual measurement, comparing the same to the area as recorded in the compromise, in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 749 of 1975. The Court Commissioner made his report at Exhibit 46. The Commissioner recorded that the measurement of the shed premises were 11 ft. 8 inches east-west and 10 ft 2 inches north-south. The petitioner did not raise any objection to the report of the court commissioner. The said report was accordingly accepted and read in evidence. The learned trial Judge thus observed that from the report of the commissioner, it was clear that the shop/suit premises in which the studio was conducted was admeasuring 27 ft. 6 inches east-west and 9 ft 4 inches north-south and considering the breadth
