[2025:RJ-JP:46420] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17607/2025 Murti Mandir Shri Raghunath Ji Maharaj Virajman Bada Mandir Raghunath Ji, through Mahant Shri Yogesh Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, aged 45 Years, presently R/o Raghunath Ji Ka Bada Mandir, Naya Ward No. 47, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Vasudev Sharma Basavatiya S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal Sharma Basavatiy, aged major, R/o Nayede Kuye Ke Paas, Mittal Colony, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 18/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, whereby the petitioner's application filed for the appointment of the Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application for the appointment of the Commissioner. He also submits that the appointment of the Commissioner will not prejudice the right of the opposite party; therefore, such a request ought not to have been rejected. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. [2025:RJ-JP:46420] (2 of 3) [CW-17607/2025] 4. From the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner has filed an eviction petition on the grounds of default in payment of rent, substantial damage and the premises have not been used from last 23 years etc. To substantiate the grounds of substantial damage/ non-user, the petitioner has already produced 17 photographs. 5. Further, a coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Prem Ratan Vs. Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr.1 has held as under:- "11. ...the provisions under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC while empowering the court with the discretion to direct a local investigation for the purpose of "elucidating the matter in dispute" only provides for the court to make local investigation where the court is not clear with regard to the matter in dispute such as where court feels the absence of requisite clarity qua the subject matter of the dispute. In the instant case, the dispute before the Tribunal was / is absolutely clear i.e. whether the tenanted premises were liable to be vacated by the tenant owing to the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord. There was thus no occasion for any elucidation of the subject matter in dispute. The application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC was thus misdirected and was only intended to facilitate the gathering of the evidence on behalf of the tenant. This is wholly impermissible." 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Rent Tribunal has rightly rejected the application for the appointment of a Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner must prove the facts and grounds pleaded in the eviction petition by leading his evidence, and the Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. 1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15335 of 2011 [2025:RJ-JP:46420] (3 of 3) [CW-17607/2025] 7. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /13