Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Surendra Pratap Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 6. 2. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that Late Kamal Ahmad-owner/landlord had requested the tenant-Santokh Singh to get the tenanted portion i.e. Naim Khan Building situate at Churi Wali Gali, Thomsenganj, Sitapur, Pargana Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur, vacated as the portion under tenancy was in dilapidated condition and most of the portions of the said building had fallen down and as such, the owner/landlord was willing to demolish the said building and to re-construct a shopping complex, to which tenant-Santosh Singh had promised to vacate the same in the month of June, 1993 but in the month of May, 1993, when the owner/landlord had gone to Bijnore at his brother's place, without his permission, the tenant had repaired southern-western and eastern walls of the hall under tenancy. When he came to know the said fact, a notice was issued to the tenant through his Counsel determining his tenancy and asking him to vacate the premise but when he did not fulfil the terms of the notice, Late Kamal Ahmad son of Late Nihal Ahmad filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the grounds that he was the owner/landlord of the building in question and the same was known as "Naim Khan Building" and one hall of the ground floor of the said building was under the tenancy of one Sardar Santokh Singh, son of Gopal Singh on monthly rent of Rs.150/-per month, was in dilapidated condition and most of the portions of the said building had fallen down and as such, the owner/landlord was willing to demolish the said building and to re-construct a shopping complex. 3. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that as the tenant had denied in his written statement that the building in question was in dilapidated condition and as such, a Commission was issued and on the basis of the Commissioner's report, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application preferred by the landlord on 29.5.1997. Feeling aggrieved, Kamal Ahamad-landlord preferred an appeal, which was numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 1997 and the appellate authority, vide order dated 5.9.2002, while allowing the appeal, set-aside the order dated 29.5.1997 and remanded the case to the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, Kamal Ahamad-landlord preferred an appeal, which was numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 1997 and the appellate authority, vide order dated 5.9.2002, while allowing the appeal, set-aside the order dated 29.5.1997 and remanded the case to the trial Court. He submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the original owner/landlord-Kamal Ahmad and original tenant-Sardar Santokh Singh had died and their heirs and legal representatives were substituted. Against the order dated 5.9.2002, the petitioners-tenants preferred the instant writ petition. 4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that opposite parties No. 2 to 6 intimated the Executive Engineer Nagar Palika Parishad (City Board), Sitapur about the dilapidated conditions of the building in question, to which, Executive Engineer made a spot enquiry and submitted his report, wherein it has been stated that the building in question is in dilapidated condition. He further submits that tenants-petitioners are not carrying out any business from the building in question and further the petitioners-tenants have put down their lock over it, to which learned counsel for the tenants-petitioners have submitted that the tenants-petitioners are still carrying out their business from the building in question and also he used the building in question as a Godown, wherein he made stock of Cold-Drinks and eggs. 5. As the disputed submissions have been made by learned Counsel for the parties, the Court propose to issue Commission, to which learned Counsel for the parties have no objection and as such, in order to verify the facts that as to whether the tenants-petitioners are using the building for carrying out business of Cold-Drinks or not or the same has been locked and further as to whether the building in question is in dilapidated condition or not, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, Mr. Ajay Kishore Pandey, Advocate, C-1567, Indira Nagar, Lucknow [Mobile No. 94154-42613] is appointed as Advocate Commissioner. 6. Mr. Ajay Kishore Pandey, Advocate Commissioner, is directed to make spot inspection by informing the date and time to the parties and submit his report by 20.4.2010. 7. Opposite parties No. 2 to 6-tenants are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards Advocate's Commissioner fee and Rs.1000/- as expenses to Mr. Ajay Kishore Pandey, Advocate Commissioner within 24 hours. 8. List the matter on 23.4.2010.