Judgment S. Saghir Ahmad, J. 1. THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by a tenant who is in occupation of the first floor of House No. 4-B/4-D, Shanker Puri, Phoolbagh, P. S. Qaiserbagh, Lucknow. The ground floor of the said house is in the occupation of the landlords, namely, opposite parties nos. 1 and 2, who by their application dated 19th August, 1980 filed under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as Act had sought the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the ground that they were in need of additional accommodation. THIS application was resisted by the petitioner who denied the case of the landlords and pleaded that the accommodation already in their occupation was sufficient for their needs. The parties exchanged their affidavits before the Prescribed Authority who disposed of the case by his judgment and order dated 12-11-84 contained in Annexure-18. The application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of judgment. 2. AN appeal was thereafter filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the III Additional District Judge, Lucknow by his judgment and order dated 14th August, 1985. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. ONE of the contentions raised by Sri K. B. Sinha, counsel for the petitioner, is that the Prescribed Authority as also the appellate court has relied upon the commissioner's report although the said report had not become final inasmuch as the objections filed against it were not disposed of by the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, the impugned judgments are vitiated. 4. THE respondents-landlords had pleaded in para 3 of their application as under :- "3. That the portion occupied by the applicants comprises of two rooms (10'x 10' and 10'x 12'), two verandhas, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and sahan. THE portion in the tenancy of the opposite party on the first floor comprises of 2 rooms, 2 verandhas, latrine, bathroom and kitchen." The extent of accommodation pleaded by the landlords was denied by the petitioner who, in his written statement (Annexure-2) stated as under :- "Denied as stated. THE portion in the tenancy of the opposite party on the first floor comprises of 2 rooms, 2 verandhas, latrine, bathroom and kitchen." The extent of accommodation pleaded by the landlords was denied by the petitioner who, in his written statement (Annexure-2) stated as under :- "Denied as stated. The portion occupied by the applicant is 3 rooms, verandah, storeroom, one kothery, latrine, bathroom and kitchen, courtyard and a lawn, rooms are bigger sized than shown. The accommodation with opposite party is two rooms, latrine, bathroom and kitchen only." 5. THE petitioner further pleaded in para 12 of his written statement that the need of the landlords stood satisfied by a portion of the ground floor which was in the tenancy of one Sri C.S. Vashishta who had vacated it in January, 1980. He also pleaded that a small store below the staircase was also taken possession of by the landlords without allowing any remission in rent. 6. SINCE there was apparently a dispute as to the extent of accommodation in occupation of the landlords as also in occupation of the petitioner, an application under section 34 (1) (c) of the Act was filed by the landlords themselves in which they, inter alia, stated as under :- "1. That there is dispute in respect of the quantum of accommodation occupied by the applicants and the opposite party in the building in question situated at 4-B/4-D, Shankerpuri, Phoolbagh, Lucknow. The details given by the applicants have been denied by the opposite party vide his para no. 3 of the written statement and the opposite party has wrongly and baselessly alleged that the accommodation in occupation of the applicants on the ground floor is bigger than the accommodation on the first floor in occupation of the opposite party." They, therefore, prayed that the Commissioner may be appointed for local inspection of the building and he may also be required to prepare a site plan of the ground floor as also of the first floor according to the scale and to give the details of the accommodation in both the portions. 7. SRI Rajendra Nath Saxena, Advocate, was appointed as Commissioner who after executing the commission submitted his report dated 18-3-81 (Annexure-13) with which the maps prepared by him were also annexed. 7. SRI Rajendra Nath Saxena, Advocate, was appointed as Commissioner who after executing the commission submitted his report dated 18-3-81 (Annexure-13) with which the maps prepared by him were also annexed. The petitioner was not satisfied with the report and, therefore, he raised objections (contained in Annexure-14) in which the extent of the accommodation shown by the commissioner was disputed and it was pleaded that the commissioner's report was liable to be rejected. The Prescribed Authority without disposing of the objections on merits passed the order as under :- "Let the Commissioner's report Ga-24 be confirmed subject to objection Ga-26 ". A perusal of the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority as also by the appellate court indicates that the report of the commissioner has been relied upon in recording concurrent findings as to the extent of accommodation in occupation of the landlords, as also in occupation of the petitioner without adverting to the objections filed by the petitioner. The objections remained undisposed of and the commissioner's report was clindly relied upon not only by the Prescribed Authority but also by the appellate court. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 27th April, 1981 himself had confirmed the report "subject to objections." It was, therefore, his duty to have considered the objections at the time of the hearing of the case and to dispose of those objections on merits before proceeding to rely upon the report. This having not been done, the report of the Commissioner was not available for consideration. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Harbans Lal v. Jag Mohan Saran, 1985 AWC 903 has held that unless the objections against the commissioner's report are disposed of, the report does not become final and cannot be taken into consideration. In view of this decision the report of the Commissioner contained in Annexure-14 was not, as observed earlier, available for consideration either by the Prescribed Authority or by the appellate court. 8. LEARNED counsel for the respondents nos. 1 and 2 had tried to distinguish the Supreme Court decision on the ground that in that case the commissioner's report was filed in another suit. The decision cannot be distinguished on this ground. The report prepared by the commissioner becomes final only when it is confirmed by the Court before which it is filed. 1 and 2 had tried to distinguish the Supreme Court decision on the ground that in that case the commissioner's report was filed in another suit. The decision cannot be distinguished on this ground. The report prepared by the commissioner becomes final only when it is confirmed by the Court before which it is filed. The order of confirmation can be passed by the Court either on a consideration of the objections filed against it on merits or otherwise if no objections are filed. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority as also by the appellate court will further indicate that a large number of affidavits, including counter, rejoinder and supplementary affidavits, which were filed by the parties, have not been considered and the findings have been recorded without discussing the evidence in detail or without indicating in the judgment as to which of the affidavits were to be relied upon and which of them were to be discarded. 9. IN view of the infirmities pointed out above, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the judgments and orders contained in Annexures nos. 18 and 19 are hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority for expeditious decision on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties shall bear their own costs.