Judgment : The question that arises in the revision petition is whether the appeal filed petitioners herein before the appellate authority against the order of the Rent Controller refusing to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the building and note the physical was maintainable. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that according to the judgment Sathia-dev, J., in N.P.Appulu v. A.Fatima Loera, 96 L. W. 569, the order was an appealable one. There is a judgment of Natarajan, J. reported in V.Govindarajulu v. T.Govindarajulu, (1989)1 L.W. 540 , taking a contrary view, learned counsel for the petitioners submits view of the conflict the matter must be referred to a Division Bench of this Court for the conflict. In normal circumstances when there is a conflict of views between two Judges of this Court, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench, But I find judgment of Natarajan, J. is based upon a judgment of the Supreme Court which is on the point. Though Sathiadev, J. has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court laid down the test correctly, he has taken the view that an order refusing to appoint Commissioner will affect the rights of parties in a case. That view is clearly wrong in view the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokul Chand, (1967)2 S.C.J. 828: A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 799. 3. The order which was considered by the Supreme Court was one refusing to appoint Commissioner for inspection and preparation of plan of premises involved in the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the order was only a procedural one not affecting any right liability of the party concerned and that the issue of a commission was only a step assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case. It was also pointed out that it was to the party to canvass the error, defect or irregularity if any in the order in an appeal the final order passed in the proceedings for eviction. On the basis of such observation, Supreme Court held that the appeal against the order refusing to appoint a Commissioner was not sustainable under the provisions of Sec.38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59 of 1968). 4. On the basis of such observation, Supreme Court held that the appeal against the order refusing to appoint a Commissioner was not sustainable under the provisions of Sec.38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59 of 1968). 4. Referring to the said judgment of the Supreme Court, Sathiadev, J. has observed follows: “The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokulchand, (1967)2 S.C.J. 828:A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 799, does not go to the extent of holding that could be no appeal filed whatsoever, as against any interlocutory order, to the appellate authority constituted under the Act. In fact, it has been clearly held by the Supreme that if an interlocutory order results in affecting the rights and the liabilities of a party proceeding, an appeal could be entertained apart from appeals filed as against final orders. The learned Judge proceeded to observe at a later stage of his judgment that the acid test find out whether an appeal would lie or not is to ascertain whether the order, if allowed remain, would affect the rights and liabilities of that party, and is of such a nature that aspect sought to be established in the interlocutory stage is one which though to extent can be established in the main matter, would due to its rejection at this prejudice his valuable rights. In that view, learned Judge proceeded to hold that the filed against the order confirming the report of the Commissioner was maintainable. respect to the learned Judge, I do not agree. Once the Supreme Court has concluded on question that an order appointing or refusing to appoint a Commissioner is only a procedural one which does not affect the rights of parties in the matter, it is not proper for this court take a different view and hold that an order accepting the report of the Commissioner appealable one as it would affect the rights of parties. 5. Natarajan, J. in Govindarajulu v. Govindarajulu, (1989)1 L.W. 540 , had correctly understood the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. case, (1967)2 S.C.J. 828.A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 799, and held that an order appointing a Commissioner Rent Controller for recording evidence of the respondent in his house was not appealable. 6. 5. Natarajan, J. in Govindarajulu v. Govindarajulu, (1989)1 L.W. 540 , had correctly understood the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. case, (1967)2 S.C.J. 828.A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 799, and held that an order appointing a Commissioner Rent Controller for recording evidence of the respondent in his house was not appealable. 6. Approaching the question from first principles I am of the view that the order refusing appoint la Commissioner will not affect the rights of parties. In this case the main petition eviction has been filed on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction. stated in the petition for eviction that the building is very old and in a dilapidated condition. Hence the burden is heavily on the landlord to show that the building is old and dilapidated condition and that he is entitled to get an order of eviction on that footing doubt learned counsel for the petitioners contends that his claimants are not willing to the case decided on a technical question of burden of proof, but they want to unimpeachable proof by getting the report of an Officer of Court, in other words, Commissioner appointed by the Court. There is a fallacy in this argument. The question is one as to whether the fact has to be decided on the issue of burden of proof. This aspect referred only for the purpose of saying that the landlord will have to let in evidence to prove that the building is in a dilapidated condition. If the landlord fails to do so then the petition will have to be dismissed on that ground itself. If the landlord lets in evidence, certainly tenant will have ample opportunity to let in evidence on his side to prove that the building in a good condition and not in a dilapidated condition as alleged by the landlord. Thus rights of both parties are not in any manner affected by the refusal of the Court to appoint Commissioner. 7. Moreover it cannot be said that a report of the Commissioner is the final word on subject and it is not as if the Court should accept any report which may be filed by Commissioner appointed by the Court. It is certainly open to the parties to show that report of the Commissioner should not be accepted by Court by cross-examining Commissioner and proving it to be wrong. It is certainly open to the parties to show that report of the Commissioner should not be accepted by Court by cross-examining Commissioner and proving it to be wrong. In those circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the Rent Controller refusing to appoint Commissioner affects his clients rights is not tenable and it cannot be accepted. 8. In the result, the revision petition has to fail and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.