evidence as well, the same also has to be taken into consideration along with report of Local Commissioner. In the instant case, even after taking into consideration the report of Local Commissioner coupled with other evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiffs are cosharers in joint possession of the suit property and defendants including the appellant are not in possession thereof. In the case of Prem Sagar (supra) , the question was whether the rented premises had not been used for continuous period of four months by the tenant, because his eviction under the Rent Act was sought on this ground. For this purpose, Local Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the factual position at the spot. In this context, it was observed that it could not be said that Local Commissioner had created evidence. This observation in the said case has no applicability to the instant case. The Local Commissioner in that case reported about factual position at the spot and not regarding possession of either party. In the case of Jagdish (supra) , the question was whether the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Local Commissioner had been appointed to report about the condition of the demised property. The question was whether without presence of Local Commissioner in the Court (as witness), his report could be read in evidence. The answer was that report of Local Commissioner could be read in evidence. There can be no quarrel with this legal proposition. However, how much weight is to be attached to the report of the Local Commissioner
