Judgment N.K. Bhattacharyya, J. 1. POWER filed by Mr. Parthasarathi Bose be kept with the record. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the revisional' application. Appearing for the petitioners, the learned Advocate Mr. Asish Kr. Sanyal has referred to paragraph 2 of the petition and submits that the delay was caused due to the illness of the learned Advocate who was admitted in the Nursing Home and on such submission he prays for condonation of delay. 2. MR. Parthasarathi Bose, learned Advocate for the O.P. in his usual fairness submits that as it is the ground of illness of the learned Advocate for the petitioner he is not opposing the petition. Considering the submission of the learned Advocates for the parties it appears to me that the explanation given in para 2 of the petition is acceptable and plausable. I accordingly, condone the delay and allow the application. By consent of the parties the revisional application is taken up for hearing treating the same as on the day's list. 3. HEARD the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Asish Kr. Sanyal appearing with Mr. Tapan Kr. Tiwari and the learned senior Advocate Mr. P.K. Roy appearing with Mr. Parthasarathi Bose and Ms. Nandita Lahiri Considered the materials on record. 4. THE tenant-defendant by this revision challenged order No. 52 dated 14.11.95 passed in Title Suit No, 27/90 by the learned Assistant District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore. 24-Parganas (South) whereby the learned Trial Judge refused the prayer of the tenant-defendants for a local investigation as was sought for by the defendants by their application under Order 26 rule 9 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff-landlord brought the Title Suit No, 27/90 before the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, for eviction of the defendant No. 1 from the suit premises on the ground, inter alia, default. In that suit, the defendant made an application under section 17(2) and (2A) of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act which is awaiting hearing. In the meantime, the defendant, made that application under Order 26 rule 9 of the C.P.C. for local investigation for the purpose of determining the area of the godown, which is the subject matter of the suit, for the purpose of determining the rent. In the meantime, the defendant, made that application under Order 26 rule 9 of the C.P.C. for local investigation for the purpose of determining the area of the godown, which is the subject matter of the suit, for the purpose of determining the rent. According to the defendants the rate of rent per sqare ft. is Rs.1.30 and the total area as claimed by the plaintiff is not 15537 Sq. ft. but less than that. According to them by local investigation, the actual measurement of the area will be brought on record and then the question of rate of rent can be determined by the Trial Court. The said prayer was made while hearing of the application on behalf of the defendants was going on. But the plaintiffs opposed that prayer on the ground that as per the agreement not only the area but also the rote of rent was fixed and the total rent payable is Rs.20,264.14 per month which the defendants paid since inception of the tenancy till the month of March, 1987 and as such it is not open for the defendants to dispute the same again. Mr. Roy, for the opposite party made such submission before this Court. 5. HEARD the submission of the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record. 6. THE Investigation for which the commission has been prayed for by the defendants is to determine the role of rent. I have already pointed out that the defendants have already disputed the rate of rent in the petition under section 17(2) and (2A) of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act. So that matter is pending before the Court and in order to circumvent the provision of law the petitioner have come up under Order 26 rule 9 of the C.P.C. for appointment of commissioner for investigation. When there is a specific provision under the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act for determination of rent payable by the tenant defendant and also the rate of rent and as that is a special provision, general provisions of the law shall not hold the field. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revisional application. Hence the revisional application fails and is rejected. 7. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revisional application. Hence the revisional application fails and is rejected. 7. HOWEVER, I make it clear that I have not entered into the merits of the case and this order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court by a special messenger at the cost of the petitioners. Such cost be put in by tomorrow. Application rejected.