JUDGMENT
S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge in revision here is to the wholly untenable order of the rent controller declining permission to the landlord to have the demised premises inspected by an expert in support of his plea that they were unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
2. A reading of the impugned order shows that the landlord’s prayer for the examination of the shop by a building expert was declined by the rent Controller observing,–I have reached, to the conclusion that allowing the expert witness of the petitioner who presumably could not be an independent witness will tantamount to lean by the court in favour of the petitioner/applicants which will amount abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice.” These observations cannot, but be branded as wholly unwarranted and perverse.
3. Expert testimony with regard to the condition, of the demised premises, when ejectment is sought, on the ground of them being unsafe and unfit for human habitation is indeed relevant Examining an expert with regard to this matter is not the exclusive right of the landlord as the tenant too may, if so advised, examine his expert in support of his case. To say that an export examined by one-party may lean in his favour is clearly no ground to deny permission to such, expert to examine the demised premises.
4. The impugned order of the rent controller is consequently hereby set aside with the direction that the landlord be permitted to have his expert examine the demised premises and the report of such expert be allowed to be placed on record This revision petition is consequently hereby accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-
