Order This Civil Order arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against order dated the 5th May, 1989, passed by the learned Rent Controller (S.D.O) at jangipur, District Murshidabad, in Rent Control Case No. 5-R/C-88 under s. 31 of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1956. 2. The opposite party-tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller, jangipur, under s. 31 of the W.B.P.T. Act stating that he was a monthly tenant under the petitioner-landlord in respect of the disputed premises at a rental of Rs.115/- per month including electricity charges for six points in respect of the premises in dispute. It was alleged by him that electric line had been disconnected by the landlord without any lawful authority. It was further alleged that the landlord tried to enhance the rent by unlawful means from Rs.115/- to Rs.145/- per month. The tenant filed a petition before the Rent Controller praying for restoration of electric connection in the disputed premises as also for fixation of fair rent. The application was hotly opposed by the landlord petitioner. 3. On 5th May, 1989, the learned Rent Controller has been pleased to pass an order after hearing both sides that in order to ascertain the actual position regarding supply or otherwise of electricity to the disputed premises it was necessary to hold an inspection of the premises and for that purpose he appointed Shri S.K. Bose, Deputy Magistrate to carry out local inspection of the premises on behalf of the Rent Controller in accordance with the provisions of s. 28 of the W.B.P.T. Act. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the learned Rent Controller the landlord have come before this Court for quashing the same. 5. The opposite party is contesting the case here. Heard the learned lawyers for both sides. 6. It appears that the whole approach of the learned Rent Controller to the matter is rather confusing. The proper procedure for the petition under s. 31 of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1956, is the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide the case reported in 81 C.W.N. 1032 (Kalabati Devi vs. K.K. Kutty). In that case it was held that the procedure as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code applies to proceedings under s. 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. In that case it was held that the procedure as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code applies to proceedings under s. 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. In subsequent decisions of our Hon'ble Court this view has been sustained. Therefore, learned Rent Controller could hold local inspection only under s. 310 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under that section, the Judge or Magistrate may at any stage of the enquiry trial or other proceedings may visit and inspect any place which in his opinion necessary for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such enquiry or trial and shall without unnecessary delay record the memorandum of any relevant fact observed at such inspection. It is obvious from the language of the section that the Judge or Magistrate under the section cannot hold the inspection through the instrumentality of any agent as the Code permits local inspection only for the purpose of proper appreciation of the evidence to be adduced before the Judge or Magistrate in the proceedings before him. Accordingly the learned Rent Controller could not appoint Sri S.K. Bose, Deputy Magistrate, to hold local inspection on his behalf. Therefore, the order is not sustainable in law. 7. It may in this connection be pointed out that the power of the learned Rent Controller under s. 28 of the W.B.PT. Act can be exercised according to the procedure of the Civil Procedure Code. This power can be invoked by the learned Rent Controller for deciding the matters falling within the provisions other than s. 31 under the Act. Fixation of fair rent is one of the essential functions of the Rent Controller and that can be done by him in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. So it is not understood how the learned Rent Controller can in the same proceeding exercise the powers vested in him according to the procedure laid down by Criminal Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Code simultaneously. It is expected that the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller will make a choice of the twin prayers made before the learned Rent Controller so that the learned Rent Controller can proceed with the matter according to law. 8. In view of the findings made above, the revisional application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In view of the findings made above, the revisional application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is quashed. As the matter is pending for a long time, it is expected that the learned Rent Controller will try to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Rent Controller forthwith. Let xerox copies of this order be handed over to the learned Advocate for the parties on usual undertaking. Application allowed, impugned order quashed.