of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for eviction of the 1st respondent and the same is coming up for arguments. The respondents 2 to 4, who are his legal heirs, are disputing the jural relationship between the parties. They are stating that they are in occupation of the premises no.17-3-534, situated at Yakut Pura, Bada Bazar, Hyderabad, but they are not in possession of the petition schedule property and that the said property in their possession is not part and parcel of the petition schedule property. The said respondents are also disputing the existence of electricity service connection given to the petition schedule property. Thus, there is a dispute as to whether the property in possession of the respondents 2 to 4 is part and parcel of the petition schedule property and whether any service connection is provided to the petition schedule property. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the issues that arise for consideration based on the pleadings and as the identity of the property as well as existence of service connection provided to it is being disputed, it is just and necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose desired by the petitioner. It is necessary to establish as to whether or not the property, which is in possession of the respondents, is part and parcel of the petition schedule property and whether the electricity service connection, if any, is provided to the petition schedule property. If a Commissioner is appointed to visit the petition schedule property and note down its physical features and also the existence or otherwise of a service connection to the property and files a report, it would obviate the necessity of adducing voluminous oral evidence and such report of the Commissioner would constitute one more assured piece of evidence and the same would be of help to the learned Rent Controller in arriving at a just decision in the matter.’
