Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 295 (ALL)

Balloo v. State of U. P.

2011-02-04

RAKESH TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This petition is directed against order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ A.C.M.M. Vth, Kanpur Nagar in Rent case no. 18 of 2001, Abdul Mazid Vs. Sugra Begum and others, by which application (paper no. 63) moved by the petitioner tenant for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, has been rejected. 2. Respondent landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent case no. 18 of 2001, for release of the accommodation under tenancy of the petitioner on the ground of his bonafide need. The tenant petitioner filed his written statement in the case on 2.9.2008. 3. During pendency of the release application, the petitioner tenant moved an application purported to be under Order 26 Rule 9, C.P.C. for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the accommodation in question and determination as to who is residing in the accommodation in question and prepare map/site plan. Objection to the said application, was filed by the landlord respondent stating that application has been moved just to linger on the proceedings. 4. The Prescribed Authority while rejecting the petitioner's application, has recorded in the impugned order that present application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner has been moved with a view to delay final disposal of the case which is pending since 2001; that by appointment of Advocate Commissioner, evidence in regard to possession cannot be permitted to be brought on record and that landlord has already produced documents regarding ownership as well as map of the accommodation in question which in clear terms establishes the position at the spot and rejected the application fixing 23.10.2010 for hearing in the matter. 5. It may also be noted here that this petition has been filed on 27.1.2011 after the proceedings of hearing have taken place before the court below on 23.10.20101. The counsel has not been able to inform the Court as to what is the status of the case at present. The petitioner has come up against an inter locutory order rejecting his application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. 6. After hearing the submissions, perusing the record and for the reasons stated above , there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order. The petitioner has come up against an inter locutory order rejecting his application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. 6. After hearing the submissions, perusing the record and for the reasons stated above , there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned which is inter locutory one and the matter is yet to be decided by the authority. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As it is an old matter of the year 2001, the court below is requested to conclude the matter expeditiously, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.