( 1 ) THIS is a petition by a party-tenant in HRC. 268/1971 on the file of the munsiff at Mangalore. He is aggrieved by an order made on IA.-I therein whereby his request for the appointment of a Commissioner to evaluate and prepare a sketch of the improvements effected by him in the leased premises, has been rejected. ( 2 ) TWO reasons have been given by the learned Munsiff for rejecting the petition. They are: (1) that the allegations on the basis of which a commission has been sought were vague; and (2) that unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he had actually carried out the improvements legally and pursuant to an agreement entered into with the landlord, he would not be entitled to relief. ( 3 ) IT seems to me that both the reasons given by the learned Munsiff clearly deserve to be accepted. ( 4 ) THIS apart, it is clear that having regard to the scope of an enquiry under the Rent Control Act, an issue exclusively relating to the nature and scope cf improvements made by a tenant would not arise for consideration. That this is the true position is settled by the decision of the Supreme court in the case of P. N. Shenoy v. B. V. Shenoy, AIR. 1971 SC. 942, which was a case arising under the Mysore Rent Control Act itself. The relevant enunciation reads : " Mr. Chagla further urged that before his client is evicted his claim for compensation, should have been considered by the Rent controller. It is enough to say that, as pointed out by the High Court, that claim does not arise for consideration in these proceedings. " ( 5 ) THE petition is therefore dismissed as misconceived. No costs. --- *** --- .