N. K. BATABYAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS C. O. arises out of an application under section 115 of the C. P. C. and is directed against the order dated 14th January, 1991 passed by Shri S. Bagchi, Learned First Additional District Judge, 24-Parganas (S) at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 553 of 1986. ( 2 ) THE O. P. as plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction and khas possession against the predecessor-in-interest, Dr. K. K. Bhargava (since deceased) of the revisionist on the ground of default in payment of rent and for reasonable requirement for the use and occupation of the Landlord as also on other grounds. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying the material plaint allegations. The Learned Trial Court decreed the suit holding, inter alia, that the defendant in the suit was entitled to protection under section 17 (4) of the W. B. P. T. Act, 1956, that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for her own use and occupation and that she had no other suitable accommodation elsewhere and that the tenant was guilty of sub-letting. The tenant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial Court and the appeal was registered. Title Appeal No. 553 of 1986 in the Court-of the Learned District Judge, 24-Parganas (S) at Alipore. During the pendency of the appeal the revisionist filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with section 151 of the C. P. C. praying for leave to adduce additional evidence and in the said application the revisionist contended that one Shri P. R. Samanta who was a tenant in respect of a flat at premises No. 1/3/1, Ballygunge Place, Calcutta owned by the Landlord-O. P. vacated his flat during the pendency of the suit and that the alleged requirement of the disputed flat by the O. P. was not bona fide and reasonable. In the objection petition the O. P. contended that Shri P. R. Samanta did not vacate the flat and was in possession of the same. In the objection petition the O. P. contended that Shri P. R. Samanta did not vacate the flat and was in possession of the same. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed another application on 10th of December, 1989 for local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7 read with section 151 of the C. P. C. in the Learned Appellate Court below praying that an Advocate Commissioner be appointed to go to premises No. 1/3/1 and 1/3, Ballygunge Place, Calcutta to hold inspection to note whether the two premises were adjacent and to note the situation of the respective houses and to take note of the extent of the accommodation of the flat situated on the first floor in premises No. 1/3/1, Ballygunge Place, Calcutta etc. . The said application was contested by the landlord-O. P. The Learned Appellate Judge has been pleased to reject the prayer for leave to adduce additional evidence as also the prayer for appointment of a local Inspection Commissioner. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the revisionist came before this Court in revision. The revisional application was disposed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Nandi (as His Lordship then was) by a judgment and order dated 24th August, 1990. His Lordship was pleased to allow the revisionist's prayer for local inspection and allowed the parties leave to adduce additional evidence in the Lower Appellate Court. When the Learned Local Inspection Commissioner appointed by the Learned Lower Appellate Court went to execute the commission there was some obstruction. Police help was sought for and allowed. But when the Commissioner thereafter went again without police help, the Commissioner and the Learned Lawyer for the Landlord-O. P. were allowed entry into the house for inspection but not the Learned Lawyer for the revisionist by the inhabitant of the flat who presented himself as Shri P. R. Samanta and showed the Learned Commissioner an identification paper to establish his identity. After sometime the Learned Commissioner and the Learned Advocate of the Landlord came out of the said flat and the Learned Commissioner wanted the petitioner's Advocate to sign the proceedings of the Learned Commissioner. The Learned Advocate of the petitioner declined to oblige in this background. The petitioner filed an application on 19th December, 1990 urging upon the Learned Appellate Court not to take cognizance of the proceedings of the Learned Local Inspection Commissioner. The Learned Advocate of the petitioner declined to oblige in this background. The petitioner filed an application on 19th December, 1990 urging upon the Learned Appellate Court not to take cognizance of the proceedings of the Learned Local Inspection Commissioner. A written objection was filed against that petition by the landlord. By the impugned order No. 61 dated 14th of January, 1991, the Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore rejected the petitioner's said application. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order the tenant-petitioner has come before this Court in revision. ( 6 ) THE revisional application is hotly contested. ( 7 ) THE only point for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable. ( 8 ) FROM a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Learned Judge has take the view that he has no reason to dis-believe the measurement taken by the Learned Commissioner who is an Officer of the Court and that as there was no provision for filing objection against the report of the Learned Inspection Commissioner, therefore, he has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the tenant-petitioner not to take cognizance of the Commissioner's report. The Learned Court below has lost sight of the most fundamental principle of fair play that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done. In this case the Local Inspection Commission was held at the back of the most interested party, therefore, the Learned Appellate Judge below unwittingly committed an error coming within section 115 (1) (c) of the C. P. C. Therefore, it is a fit case where the revisional application should be allowed. ( 9 ) AT the time of arguments, the Learned Lawyer for the Landlord-O. P. has submitted that after the order for local inspection was allowed, the O. P. has sold out the property to some other persons, therefore, the petition for local inspection as directed by this Hon'ble Court in the revision application filed earlier has become infructious. These questions may be agitated by the Landlord-O. P. in the Court of the Learned Lower Appellate Court and the matter goes back there after the present revisional application is disposed of. These questions may be agitated by the Landlord-O. P. in the Court of the Learned Lower Appellate Court and the matter goes back there after the present revisional application is disposed of. The duty which was cast upon the Learned Court below to appoint a commission for local inspection by the order passed in the previous revisional application is now being made subject to the condition if the Learned Additional District Judge finds upon the materials to be placed before him that the holding of the inspection in the charged situation, if any, will be infructious then he will be at liberty to pass such order according to law as he may deem proper. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed on contest. The impugned order is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Learned Lower Appellate Court for disposal of the inspection matter according to law in the light of observations made above. No order as to costs. As the matter is pending for about two decades, the Learned Court below is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from this date. Let xerox copy of this order be given to the Learned Advocates of both sides on the usual undertaking. Application allowed.