Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revisional application. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed an application for holding local inspection under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of accommodation in the suit premises of the plaintiff/opposite parties who have filed the instant suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. The other application which was filed by the petitioner was to stay the proceeding of the suit or inspection work till the disposal of the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the order impugned in this revisional application, I do not find any irregularity in the impugned order for which any interference is required at this stage with the impugned order. It is well settled that in a suit for eviction filed on the ground of reasonable requirement, the plaintiffs have to prove that they require the suit premises for their own use and occupation as they are not in possession of any reasonable suitable accommodation. It is also well settled that to prove that the plaintiffs are not in possession of any reasonable suitable accommodation it would be necessary to find out the extent of present accommodation of the plaintiffs by local inspection. Therefore, I do not find that the learned Judge has in any way acted illegally and with material irregularly in exercise of his jurisdiction in allowing the application for local inspection filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties. So far as the other part of the order is concerned, I do not find any merit in the argument of Mr. Tandon that since an application for amendment of the written statement has been filed, the hearing of the application for inspection under Order 39, Rule 7 C. P. C. ought not have been done. It is only the accommodation of the plaintiffs that should be inspected by the Commissioner on the basis of the order impugned in this revisional application. Therefore, I find no illegality in the order impugned in this revisional application.
(2.) Accordingly, this revisional application is rejected.
(3.) There will be no order as to costs. Before parting with the order, mention one more fact that is to be considered. Mr. Tandon, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in the objection to the petition for local inspection, it has been alleged by the petitioner that the local inspection should be made in respect of the accommodation available to the defendant-petitioner but that prayer was not dealt with in the impugned order. It will be open to the defendant-petitioner to make an independent application for holding local inspection in respect of accommodation available to him before the learned Munsif concerned, if such application is made, it is needless to say that the learned Munsif will dispose of the same in accordance with law.;