Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. This revision is by the tenant. The eviction proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are pending in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Bellary. The Counsel for petitioner-landlord in the Court of the Munsiff made an application for appointment of a Commissioner, supporting his application with memorandum of facts signed by him, that application came to be allowed and as against the wishes of the landlord a holder in diploma inEngineering (retired officer) was appointed as Commissioner to examine the building in question as to its condition instead of a better qualified degree holder of Engineering suggested by the landlord's Counsel. Aggrieved by that he preferred a revision under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act to the District Judge, Bellary. The District Judge, Bellary, in HRC Revision No. 2/1983 on his file passed an order dated 13th June 1983 by which he rejected the revision application holding that no revision lies against an interlocutory order made by the Munsiff in proceedings under the Act. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd - v. - Gokal Chand, : 1SCR310 .
2. I am afraid the Learned District Judge either did not understand the law which he was required to apply or deliberately committed an error in order to protract the litigation. What the Supreme Court decided was pertaining to the Delhi Rent Control Act. At the relevant time the Delhi Rent Control Act provided for eviction by theController himself and from the Controller's order, an appeal was provided to a Tribunal and yet another appeal on questions of law to the High Court. It was in the context of the provisions specifically contained in the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the High Court had taken the correct view that no appeal lay to the Tribunal against an interlocutory order made by the Controller. That is not the same with reference to the Karnataka Act, In Karnataka Act Section 50 provides for revision by the High Court as well as by the District Judge. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Act specifically confers very wide powers of revision on the District Judge. Apart from the wide powers of revision conferred by the District Judge, the language therein leaves no doubt that the revisional power is conferred on the District Judge in order that he may satisfy himself as to the legality or correctness of such order or proceeding taken by the Court of Munsiff. An interlocutory application made in the course of an eviction proceeding instituted under Section 21(1) of the Act is as much a proceeding as the main petition itself. Therefore, even the interlocutory orders must be held to be revisable by the District Judge having jurisdiction.
3. But having regard to the time spent in the litigation in this Court, I am of the view this is not a fit case in which the District Judge's order calls for interference in theinterests of justice. If I set aside the order of the District Judge and remit the same to him for fresh disposal, it will again consume more time and perhaps return to this Court, onsome other ground. I do not find any serious lacuna or legal infirmity in the order of the Munsiff choosing a holder of a diploma in Engineering to be appointed asCommissioner, what is required to be done by the Commissioner is plain assessment of the condition of the building as to its lasting qualities. The building is a residential building and not some special structure which requires special knowledge. I am satisfied that the diploma holder is as competent to do the job as the holder of a degree in Engineering. The District Judge's order is left uncorrected.
4. Mr. K.S. Savanur, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Learned Munsiff should not have appointed the Commissioner on application supported only by memorandum of facts by the Counsel. The Learned Munsiff at all time bad powers to appoint the Commissioner even without that application. The revision is therefore dismissed.