Order.- This revision is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore functioning under section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The impugned order purports to have been passed under rule 26, of the Rules framed under the Act, rules 1 and 2 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code, and appoints a commissioner to make a local investigation of the property which had been rented and to submit a report to the Court about the condition, of the property and about the persons who are in occupation of the property and other necessary particulars relating to the subject-matter of the petition. It may be stated that the main ground on which eviction has been sought by the owners, who were the petitioners before the learned District Judge, is sub-letting. For one thing, the powers of the revisional authority under section 25 of the Act is limited to examining the legality, regularity or propriety of the orders of the Courts below. The Rent Controller, it is clear, is not functioning as a civil Court, and the Civil Procedure Code, as such has not been applied to the Rent Controller. The only power which the Rent Controller has with reference to inspection of the property is to be found under rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Act, which enables the inspection of buildings by the Controller and the appellate authority if they think fit to do so. The Controller or the appellate authority may personally inspect the building concerned and after inspection, the Controller or the appellate authority shall record a note of inspection in brief, and such note shall form part of the case record. Here, what the learned District Judge has purported to do is to authorise a commissioner, practically to gather evidence on the question whether there has been sub-letting-the report to be also about the persons who are in occupation of the premises. Even the Rent Controller or the appellate authority could not have gathered on-the-spot information as is now directed to be done by the Commissioner. The order is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge and cannot be sustained. The revision is allowed. No costs. V.S. ------------- Revision allowed.