ORDER K.M. Natarajan, J. 1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property and note the physical features. 2. It is seen that the respondent herein filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner that the petition mentioned premises is required for accommodating his vehicle, namely, a tourist van bearing registration number TNP. 4066. The said application resisted by the revision petitioner contending that he is using the said premises for tailoring shop and no van can enter the premises as it is unless it is altered. He also contended that there is no sufficient space for parking the vehicle. The Court below dismissed the petition relying on a judgment of this Court reported in Mrs. Thangam v. T.K. Madhavan wherein it was held as follows: ... the shed in the occupation of the respondent need not be actually used as a garage at the time the petition is filed. It may either be used as a garage or alternatively it may be of such structural design that it can be used as a garage with certain adaptations. It is not the case of the respondent that the shed occupied by him cannot be used as a garage with certain adaptations. If the wooden partition etc., put up by him are removed, the shed can certainly be used as a garage. The Appellate Authority was, therefore, wrong in holding that the petitioner must prove that the shed is being used as a garage in present and further more the sub-clause does not extend to a building, which cannot be used without suitable adaptations being made. It is only against the said order of the Court below that the present petition is filed. 3. It is stated in the grounds of revision that the order of the court below is erroneous and contrary to law and that the lower Appellate Court failed to note that the appointment of a Commissioner is essential for the determination of the controversy in question as well as to note down the physical features of the property in question and its adaptability, especially in view of the alleged requirement of the landlord. Learned Counsel for the respondent drew my attention to a decision of this Court reported in V. Savarimuthu v. Special Director of Enforcement where it was held as follows: The power under Article 227 is an extraordinary power and it requires to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution. It is a power of superintendence reserved for this Court and is subject to its discretion and it cannot be claimed as of right by any party. By now, it has been settled by pronouncements of the highest Court in the land as to when this Court could properly report to and exercise the powers under Article 227. The well accepted contingencies and features to warrant the exercise of such powers are: (i) Lack of jurisdiction, erroneous assumption of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction; (ii) grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or an erroneous decision of law; (iii) violation of the principles of natural justice; (iv) perverse finding founded on no material whatever; and (v) arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. It was further observed that the High court under Article 227 does not assume and exercise appellate or revisional powers even on a question of law. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that none of the ingredients which are necessary for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been made out in this case. I find much force in the continuation of the learned Counsel for the respondent. There is absolutely nothing for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is open to the petitioner to adduce necessary evidence to substantiate his contention. The mere fact that the court below refused to appoint a Commissioner is not a ground for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. The only ground urged is that if the Commissioner noted the physical features of the property, it will be useful for deciding the issue involved in the O.P. That cannot be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, the revision fails and is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to adduce necessary evidence in support of his case. No costs.