JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Srivastava appearing for caveator respondents and perused the record. 2. The petitioner claims herself to be tenant in house No. C20/2-X-4, Mohalla Habibpura, Nai Pokhari, Varanasi City. Case set up by the petitioner in the Court below is that she was a tenant of Smt. Rewati Devi wife of Sri Vishnu Gopal Srivastava at the rate of Rs. 140/- per month till her death. Thereafter the rent was paid to her heirs and legal representatives namely Suresh Srivastava, Dinesh Srivastava and Ramesh Srivastava, sons of Vishnu Gopal Srivastava. 3. It is stated that Smt. Rani Srivastava wife of Suresh Kumar Srivastava purchased a room measuring 8' x 8' = 64 Sq. feet in the premises in question through a registered sale-deed dated 28.11.2002 and constructed a latrine and bathroom in an area of 3' x 4' feet. It is stated that subsequently plaintiff-respondent Imran Ahmad purchased the aforesaid 260 sq. feet of land including the constructed portion thorough registered sale-deed dated 24.11.2003 from its owner Smt. Rani Srivastava. 4. The first contention of the counsel for petitioner is that from perusal of sale-deed dated 24.11.2003, it is evident that plaintiff respondent purchased only a room area 8' x8' = 64 Sq. feet alongwith latrine bathroom area 3' x4' feet out of total area 290.8 sq. feet of the premises in question. It is stated that apart from the aforesaid room and latrine bathroom purchased by respondent No. 1, there are two other rooms on the ground floor and one room on first floor alongwith latrine and kitchen which is under tenancy of the petitioner and that rightful owners of her tenanted portion are heirs of Smt. Rewati Devi and not respondent No. 1. However, inspite of this fact, plaintiff-respondent treating himself to be the owner of entire area of the premises in question, filed an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as P.A. case No. 17 of 2005, Imran Ahmad v. Tamanna Bano @ Sadhana Devi, in the Court of Civil Judge(JD) Havali/Prescribed Authority, Varanasi for recovery of rent and release of the premises. 5. 5. The application was contested by the petitioner by filing her objection stating therein that she is a tenant in the premises in question since the year 1974, has been continuously paying rent to its erstwhile owner Smt. Rewati Devi at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month including electricity charges at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. It is also stated that since rent receipts were not issued by the erstwhile owner, the tenant petitioner was continuously depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 140/- in case No. 548 of 1996, Tamanna Bano and others v. Rewati Devi, under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 6. The order of Prescribed Authority is challenged on the ground that Prescribed Authority without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without taking into consideration the genuine need and comparative hardships of the petitioner, has passed order dated 24.2.2009 allowing application of respondent No. 1 and directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within two months. In the circumstances, the order is illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of trial Court, the petitioner preferred rent appeal No. 32 of 2009 alongwith an application paper No. 6Ga for grant of temporary injunction supported by affidavit. During pendency of the appeal, the respondent also filed a misc. case for execution of the order dated 24.2.2009, in which Parwana for eviction has been issued. An application paper No. 26 Ga for expeditious hearing of the case was also moved by the petitioner. 8. Apart from the above, the petitioner moved an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to enquire into the matter as regards other accommodation of respondent No. 1. 9. The lower appellate Court rejected application of the petitioner for temporary injunction alongwith application paper No. 26Ga for expeditious hearing of the case, vide its order dated 3.8.2010. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46919 of 2010 which was disposed of by the High Court vide judgement and order dated 10.8.2010 directing the Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Varanasi to decide the rent appeal on the next date fixed i.e. 11.8.2010 or within a week on day to day basis. The Court further provided in the judgement that petitioner shall not be evicted till delivery of the judgement in rent appeal. The Court further provided in the judgement that petitioner shall not be evicted till delivery of the judgement in rent appeal. The lower appellate Court thereafter by its order dated 16.8.2010 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner within the time frame fixed by the Court. 10. The order of the lower appellate Court is assailed on the ground that the Court below has decided the appeal in a hurry without considering the application for appointment of advocate commissioner to enquire into the fact regarding other accommodations in possession of the respondent. In short contention of the counsel for petitioner is that bona fide need and comparative hardship could not be assessed by the Court below without matter having been got inspected or investigated by an Advocate commissioner with regard to accommodation with the father of the landlord who was living separately in another building. 11. Sri A.K. Srivastava, counsel for the respondent submits that averments made in paragraph Nos. 1, 21 and 22 of the written statement filed by the petitioner-tenant appended as annexure No. S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit, go to show that house in dispute has been purchased by the respondent from Smt. Rani Srivastava by sale deed dated 24.11.2003 and that though relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied by the petitioner in this petition, but she has admitted the respondent in the trial Court to be her landlord in paragraph Nos. 1, 21 and 22 of her written statement thus : ^^1- ;g fd oknh ds okni= ds nQk 1 esa vafdr ;g dFku fd mlus iz'uxr edku dks Jherh jkuh JhokLro ls fnukad 24&11&2003 bZ0 dks dzz; fd;k gS] ls Lohdkj gSA 'ks'k nQkk etdwj esa vafdr dFku oktkudkjh ds vHkko esa budkj gSA 21- ;g fd vnkyr }kjk ikfjr mijksDr vkns’k ds vuqikyu esa izfrokfnuh la0 1 iz’uxr edku dk fdjk;k ekg tqykbZ lu~ 1996 ls 100 :i;k izfrekg fdjk;k rFkk 40 :i;k foèkqr [kpZ ;kuh dqy eqcfyx 140@& :i;k egokj dh nj ls vkt fnu rd vnk djrh pyh vk jgh gSA izfrokfnuh us iwoZ edku ekfydku dks fdjk;k vnk djus esa dHkh dksbZ pwd ugha fd;k gS vkSj vkt Hkh fdjk;k u vnk djus dh dksbZ ealk izfrokfnuh dks ugha gSA ;kuh mDr fdjk;k vxj oknh ysuk pkgs rks izfrokfnuh mls nsus dks rS;kj o rRij gSA bl izdkj izfrokfnuh ds ftEes fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fdjk;k vkfn cdk;k ugha gSA 22- ;g fd edku etdwj lEiw.kZ jdck ek= 260-8 oxZQhV ftlesa Hkwry ij nks dejk o ySfV~u] ckFk:e rFkk izFke ry ij ,d dejk o fdpu fLFkr gS ftlesa izfrokfnuh vius ifr ls vjlk dbZ lkyksa iwoZ ls vyx vius iq= jktsUnz rFk mldh iRuh Jherh vydk ,oa mlds nks cPps ,oa f}rh; iq= jfo ftldh iRuh Jherh fjf>e r‘rh; iq= luh] iq=h uhrw o lruk ;kuh dqy ikfjokfjd 10 lnL;ksa ds lkPpkokn pyh tk jgh gS ;kuh edku etdwj esa fLFkr flQZ rhu dejksa esa 10 [kkfyx ukckfyx lnL;ksa ds lkFk fdlh rjg ls cotg xjhch thou c’kj djrh pyh vk jgh gSA** 12. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears from the details and boundaries given in the sale deed that respondent has purchased only a part of house in question ad measuring 260.8 sq. feet for Rs. 55000/-. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears from the details and boundaries given in the sale deed that respondent has purchased only a part of house in question ad measuring 260.8 sq. feet for Rs. 55000/-. The relevant extract of details as given in the sale deed dated 24.11.2003 are as under : fooj.k fodzhr edku edku uEcj lh- 20@2 ,Dl &4 dk tqt fgl tks layXu ekufp= esa ykyjax dh frjNh ydhjksa ls nhyk;k x;k gS ftldk dqy jdck 299-8 oxZfQV gS eksgYyk gchciqjk] ubZ iks[kjh gYdk psrxat 'kgj okjk.klh ftldh pkSgn~nh fuEu gSA iwjc%& edku pUnzorh nsohA if’pe%& xyh 3 QhV pkSM+hA mRrj%& tqt fgLlk e0 ua0 lh-20@2 ,Dl&4 fnus’k pUnz JhokLro oxSjgA nf{k.k%& dqEgkj dk ckxA uksV%& fodzhr edku dk dqy jdck 260-8 oxZQhV gS ftldk ljdkjh jsV ds vuqlkj dher 35]235@& :i;k gksrk gS vkSj mlesa fufeZr ,fj;k 8 ckbZ 8 dk ,d dejk 64 oxZQhV gS vkSj ,d ySfV~u ckFk:e 3 ckbZ 4 oxZQqV ;kuh 12 oxZQhV ,fj;k esa gSA dqy fufeZr {ks=Qy 76 oxZQhV dh dher 25080@& :i;k gksrk gS vkSj dqy ;ksx 58]315@& :i;k gksrk gSA fodze; i= eqofyx 55000@& :i;k esa gks jgk gS vr,o ljdkjh jsV ds vuqlkj 59000@& ij LVkEi 'kqYd fn;k tk jgk gSA 2- fodzhr edku lM+d ls 200 ehVj dh iwjh ij xyh esa fLFkfr gS vkSj iw.kZr;k vkoklh; gS vkSj vkoklh; {ks= esa gSA fnukad&24@11@2003 13. From the above, it is evident that respondent had not purchased only room area 8' x8' feet with latrine bathroom but had purchased total area 260.8 sq. feet from the area of house in question having area 298 sq. feet, and therefore contention of the counsel for petitioner that respondent No. 1 purchased only a room of 8' x8' feet is incorrect. 14. The application of the petitioner for appointment of advocate commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9, C.P.C. has been rejected by the Court below by assigning cogent reasons. feet, and therefore contention of the counsel for petitioner that respondent No. 1 purchased only a room of 8' x8' feet is incorrect. 14. The application of the petitioner for appointment of advocate commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9, C.P.C. has been rejected by the Court below by assigning cogent reasons. The provision provides that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. 15. It appears that contention of the counsel for petitioner is that father of the respondent landlord has another house in his possession and as such commission be issued for verification of the same. The application has been rejected by the Court by recording finding that appellant by the application wants to collect fresh evidence at the appellate stage. As regards bona fide need and comparative hardship is concerned, the trial Court has already addressed the issue and has come to the conclusion that accommodation of father of the respondent in another building is insufficient for his purpose and that accommodation in question was bona fide required by the son of the landlord respondent who is getting married. The finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship has been thus decided in favour of the landlord respondent by the Courts below. 16. It is settled law that it is not permissible to collect evidence at the appellate stage. The lower appellate Court has decided the appeal in pursuance of the order of this Court within the stipulated period fixed by the Court, hence it cannot be said that it has decided the appeal in hurry. It may be noted here that it is only at the execution stage that petitioner moved application for appointment of advocate commissioner for verification of accommodation was not taken before the trial Court. 17. It is also settled that tenant during pendency of the suit, should search out accommodation for himself but in the instant case it appears that petitioner tenant has not made any efforts in this regard. 18. 17. It is also settled that tenant during pendency of the suit, should search out accommodation for himself but in the instant case it appears that petitioner tenant has not made any efforts in this regard. 18. For all the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below under Article 226 of the Constitution. No illegality or infirmity in the findings could be shown by the petitioner. 19. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ————