Order.-These two Civil Revision Petitions are respectively filed by the tenants and the land-lord in respect of 32-24 acres of garden and dry land in Negamam village, Pollachi taluk, Coimbatore District against the appellate order fixing fair rent. The property in question was leased out on 23rd April, 1957, by the landlord to the tenants on a cash rent of Rs. 2,680 per annum. It appears that since then, a number of cocoanut trees on the lands had begun to yield fruit and so the land-lord filed an application before the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent claiming that Rs. 10,850 would be the proper rent. The tenants naturally opposed this application. But the Rent Court assessed the fair rent at Rs. 6,086. On appeal the Rent Tribunal was not prepared to accept that figure and so it reduced it to Rs. 5,000. Both the tenants as well as the land-lord feel aggrieved by the fixation of this amount as fair rent and have filed these two Civil Revision Petitions. The contention of Mr. M.R. Narayanaswami on behalf of the tenants is that there has been a serious irregularity committed by the Rent Court in receiving evidence which is not admissible and being influenced by such evidence. Purporting to act under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Payment of Fair Rent Act, 1956 the Rent Court appointed the Revenue Inspector of the village to make a local enquiry with a view to collect data. It appears that the Revenue Inspector, besides collecting the necessary and relevant data also made enquiries of the neighbouring land owners about the rent. This enquiry, it is stated was done behind the back of the tenants and that, therefore, the entire report should be excluded from consideration which however was not done. Rule 4 (1) gives the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal certain powers exercisable by a civil Court. They have also power inter alia to make local inspections. This power is independent of the power conferred on the Rent Court under Rule 8. That says: “In hearing an application under the Act the Rent Court shall have also power to depute any Officer of the Revenue Department not lower than the rank of a Revenue Inspector to make local enquiry and inspection and to collect relevant data. This power is independent of the power conferred on the Rent Court under Rule 8. That says: “In hearing an application under the Act the Rent Court shall have also power to depute any Officer of the Revenue Department not lower than the rank of a Revenue Inspector to make local enquiry and inspection and to collect relevant data. The Officer shall submit a report of such enquiry and inspection in writing and this report shall be part of the evidence in the case. Provided, however, the parties to the proceeding shall be entitled to be furnished with copies thereof and shall have liberty to file objections thereto and the Rent Court shall consider this report together with the objections thereto in passing orders on the application.” It will be seen from the foregoing provisions that the Revenue Inspector is expressly deputed to make enquiries. But at the same time it should be noticed that in so doing he is not functioning as a judicial officer. It cannot be said that obtaining information from the neighbouring landlords at a time when either of the parties was not present is in any way illegal. It can rightly be said that such enquiry by the Revenue Inspector for collecting relevant data should ordinarily be done in the presence of the parties concerned. It will be prudent to do so. But where it is not so done, it cannot be said that such an enquiry is in any way illegal. The evidence furnished by his report is the original evidence of an expert as it were and not a judicial order. The rule itself prescribes that his report will be admissible in evidence. The party is given an opportunity to challenge the correctness of the report by means of objections thereto. If in any particular case it is found that the report of the Revenue Inspector is either one-sided or is based upon materials which are not relevant, it will undoubtedly be open to the party to bring it to the notice of the Court. Such objections were filed in the present case. The Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal have considered those objections and they have accepted the report of the Revenue Inspector. I am unable to see any error in the procedure or in what the Revenue Inspector or the authorities below did. Such objections were filed in the present case. The Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal have considered those objections and they have accepted the report of the Revenue Inspector. I am unable to see any error in the procedure or in what the Revenue Inspector or the authorities below did. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention now urged on behalf of the tenants that there was no proper material before the authorities under the Act for increasing the rent stipulated in the lease deed. The assessment made by the Tribunal was perfectly within its jurisdiction and not being vitiated by any serious error has to be accepted. I find very little merit in the objection of the landlord to the assessment of fair rent made under the Act. It was within the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal as the final authority to fix the fair rent. It has not been shown that the amount fixed by the Rent Tribunal is in any way opposed to any principle of law. The landlord’s petition will also have to fail. In the result both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs. R.M. ------- Petitions dismissed.