B. Amit Sthalekar,J. By the impugned order dated 3.9.2013 the trial court has rejected the application of the tenant for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. 2. According to the petitioner the plea taken by him in written statement is that the landlord has other accommodation and therefore, the application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is not maintainable. When the question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted that the petitioner has already taken this plea in his written statement by way of evidence that the plaintiff-landlord has an alternative accommodation and he has also submitted documentary evidence to that effect. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the court below while passing the order dated 3.9.2013 and it has already been observed by the said court that earlier also the defendant-tenant had filed an application on 15.12.2011 which had been rejected by the court and it appears that these are only delaying tactics and the facts which have been stated in his application no.77 can also be established by the defendant-tenant by leading evidence. On this ground the application paper no.77 for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner has been rejected. 3. Having heard Sri R.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the papers on record, I find that the trial court has considered the matter with sound legal logic and is absolutely correct in saying that the plea has already been taken in the written statement and the evidence has already been filed to that effect and the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is not at all necessary and the defendant-petitioner can always lead his evidence in accordance with the statutory provisions regarding documentary evidence. 4. For reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 3.9.2013. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ___________________