JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5.2.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court, No. 3, Unnao in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2006(Avinash Chandra Tewari v. Biharishwar Mahadev Trust) by which an application of the petitioner for issue of the commission rejected by opposite party No. 1. 2. Facts in brief as submitted by Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner are that an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 moved on behalf of respondent No. 2, Sri Biharishwar Mahadeo Ji Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘trust’) for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted accommodation situated at House No. 328, Mohalla Jawahar Nagar, City Unnao. Accordingly, a case numbered as P.A. Case No. 14 of 2000 registered before Prescribed Authority, who after exchange of pleadings and other documentary evidence by order dated 8.11.2006, allowed the release application. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.11.2006 passed by the prescribed authority in P.A. Case No. 14 of 2000 (Biharishwar Mahadev Trust v. Sri Avinash Chandra Tewari), petitioner filed an appeal (Rent appeal No. 04 of 2006). In the said appeal an application moved by the applicant/petitioner [numbered as Application No. 116(ga)] for issuing commission. After hearing the parties, the opposite party No. 1 by order dated 5.2.2010 rejected the application moved by the applicant for issuing commission, hence the present writ petition. 4. In the said appeal an application moved by the applicant/petitioner [numbered as Application No. 116(ga)] for issuing commission. After hearing the parties, the opposite party No. 1 by order dated 5.2.2010 rejected the application moved by the applicant for issuing commission, hence the present writ petition. 4. Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 5.2.2010, submitted that in order to resolve the controversy involved in the present case, it is necessary to issue the commission, however, the opposite party No. 1 by means of the impugned order in most arbitrary manner, without considering the fact, rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to issue the commission, the prayer for issuing the commission in the present case is necessary to ascertain whether respondent No. 2 desires the accommodation in question and actually the need of landlord is bonafide or not but while passing the impugned order, the Court below not considered the same and by way of unreasoned order rejected the prayer of the petitioner which is against the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Rastogi v. Ashish Kumar and another, 2009 UP RCC 56 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 5 held as under : “A plain reading of this order would show that the High Court did not apply its mind while disposing of the writ petition because, while passing the aforesaid order, the High Court in fact was under a wrong impression that the case is passed over for the day on the illness slip of Shri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The order rejecting the prayer of the appellant for appointment of a Engineer/Advocate Commissioner was not challenged in the said writ petition which was admittedly not the position.” 5. He further submits that the reasoning given by the appellate Court, opposite party No. 1 in the impugned order is also totally in contra-version to the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) v. N. Vasudeva Rao, 2008 AIR SCW 435, it held as under : (Para-15):- “Reliance was placed on two Division Bench Judgments holding that contempt petition was not maintainable before Learned Single Judge as his order had merged with the Division Bench order. As regards Lalith Mathur’s case (supra), the High Court distinguished the judgment on the ground that there was not elaborate discussion in the judgment and therefore no reason is discernible. To say the least, the alleged distinguishing feature as pointed out by the High Court not to follow the judgment cannot be said to be graceful. It is clearly violative of the judicial discipline. It has been stated that payments have been made to some persons and no departure could be made in the present case. Actually there is no definite material as to whether the land was resumed or it was an excavated land.” 6. Sri P.K. Khare, further submits that the respondent No. 2 (Trust) does not require premises in tenancy bonafidly but actually it is pleasure and for that purpose if it requires, it may utilize for enlarging the constructed area over the vacant land which is adjoining to the tenanted accommodation and is also there at the place of ‘Gangaghat’ District Unnao. Keeping in view the said fact, issue of commission is necessary in the present case, so the order under challenge in the present case is contrary to the facts of the case and liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the present case, it is not disputed between the parties that the release application moved by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted accommodation situated at House No. 328, Mohalla Jawahar Nagar, City Unnao, allowed by order dated 8th November, 2006 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge(Senior Division), Unnao in P.A. No. 14 of 2000. 9. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8.11.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal which is pending in the Court of opposite party No. 1, thereafter, on 30.9.2009 an application (Annexure No. 4) for issue of the commission moved by the petitioner rejected by order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the opposite party No. 1. 10. 9. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8.11.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal which is pending in the Court of opposite party No. 1, thereafter, on 30.9.2009 an application (Annexure No. 4) for issue of the commission moved by the petitioner rejected by order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the opposite party No. 1. 10. From the perusal of the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the opposite party No. 1, it is crystal clear that while rejecting the application for issue of the commission, the Court below given a categorical finding of fact that in the present case main dispute at this stage is whether it is necessary to issue a commission on the basis of pleading or not, accordingly, it was held that at this stage no necessity for issue of the commission. Further a finding was also given that in case commission is issued, the matter will linger further without any good reason and there will be a delay in the disposal of appeal pending since the year 2006. 11. To go for local inspection or issue of commission for the proper disposal of the controversy pending is a sole progrative (sic) of the Court to decide whether to move the same or not. Hence, it is late in a day to quarrel that it is not mandatory on the part of the Court to issue commission. When an application is moved for the said purpose. The local inspection or commission by Court is made only in those cases where on the evidence led by the parties, Court is not able to arrive at a just conclusion either way or where the Court feels that there is some ambiguity in the evidence which can be clarified by making local inspection or commission. Local inspection or issue a commission by the Court cannot be claimed as of right by any party. Such inspections are made to appreciate the evidence already on record and Court is not expected to visit the site for collecting evidence. [See Randhir Singh Sheoran v. 6th Additional District Judge, 1997(2) JCLR 860 and Radhey Shyam v. A.D.J., Court No. 13, Lucknow and others, 2010(2) ADJ 758 ]. 12. Such inspections are made to appreciate the evidence already on record and Court is not expected to visit the site for collecting evidence. [See Randhir Singh Sheoran v. 6th Additional District Judge, 1997(2) JCLR 860 and Radhey Shyam v. A.D.J., Court No. 13, Lucknow and others, 2010(2) ADJ 758 ]. 12. Further, in the present case as stated herein above, the opposite party No. 1 on the basis of the material facts on record given a categorical finding that at this stage, it is not necessary to issue commission, accordingly, rejected the application for issue of the Advocate/Commissioner, moved by the petitioner. Further the Court below held that if the application for issue of commission is allowed the same will linger the matter unnecessary, as appeal is pending since the year 2006. The said view taken by the opposite party No. 1 is in accordance with law as laid down by this Court in the case of Sonpal v. 4th Additional District Judge, Aligarh and others, 1992 (2) ARC, 596. 13. In the case of Smt. Shamshun Nisha v. Ist Additional District Judge, Lucknow and others, 1992 (1) ARC 423, it is held as under : “By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order, dated 13.05.1991, passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No. 6 by which the petitioner’s request for local inspection was rejected by the appellate Court. The appellate Court pointed out that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to rebut the evidence of the expert. However, the fact is not disputed that the appeal is still pending and in appeal only an application for local inspection of the site by the Advocate Commissioner has been rejected. Therefore, in my opinion, the said order cannot be challenged in the writ petition.” 14. So far as, the judgment which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the M/s Harihar Sugandh (p) Ltd, Anandi Das Kannauj through it’s M.D. v. Add. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, 2004(57) ALR 224, Special Duty Collector LA. (supra) and Radheshyam Rastogi (supra) are not applicable in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. 15. Further in the case of Anandi Das Kannauj through it’s M.D. v. Add. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, 2004(57) ALR 224, Special Duty Collector LA. (supra) and Radheshyam Rastogi (supra) are not applicable in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. 15. Further in the case of Anandi Das Kannauj through it’s M.D. v. Add. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, 2004(57) ALR 224, it was held that if an application for issue a commission is rejected then, the same can not be res-judicata for moving another application for issue of the commission for collection of evidence, and in the case of Okhla Enclave Plot holder Welfare Association v. Union of India and others, 2009 LAR 51 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing and examining issues involved in the present case deemed fit to direct appointment of Commissioner, however, in the present case the Court below on the basis of the material evidence on record, come to the conclusion that there was no necessity for issue of the commission so the petitioner cannot derive any benefit form the above said judgments. 16. Accordingly, as it is a sole domain of the Court to issue a commission or not and the local inspection or commission cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a party, so there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the order under challenge. 17. For the foregoing reason, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and is dismissed. 18. No order as to costs. ————