JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Heard Sri Hamant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner , Sri Mohd. Arif Khan , learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan Advocate for opposite parties and perused the record. 2. Facts, in brief , of the present case are that one Sri Laxmi Prasad has moved release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 . registered as Misc. Case No. 52 of 2004 in the court of civil Judge (J.D.) South/ Prescribed Authority , Sultanpur for release of the house NO. 214 old (229 New) situated at mohalla- Majorganj Pargana- Meerpur Tehsil-Sadar District Sultanpur(herein after referred as ' house in question') in which petitioner is a tenant . During the pendency of said matter, on behalf of tenant an application under Section 34 of the Act no.13 of 1972 for issuance of Commission in respect to the house no. 228, 229, 230 , registered as paper no. 9 Ga 2 . On the said application, landlord/ opposite party no.2 filed an objection . 3. Learned trial court after considering the pleadings on the point in issue, rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant by order dated 13.4.2012 holding therein that respondent no.2/ landlord in his application for release has stated that he is the owner of house no.228 and 229 and other findings has also been given to the effect that the request of issuance of commission which has been made by the tenant/ petitioner in respect to house which belongs to landlord/ respondent no.2 in this regard there is description on record so keeping in view the said facts there is no justification or reason to allow the prayer for inspection as made by tenant/petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has challenged the said order by means of present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. In order to decide the controversy which involved in the present case, I feel it appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Section 34(1)(C) of Act no.13 of 1972 for issuance of commission under Rent Control Act framed therein and Rule 22 (f) of Rules under U.P. Act 13 of 1972. 5. In order to decide the controversy which involved in the present case, I feel it appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Section 34(1)(C) of Act no.13 of 1972 for issuance of commission under Rent Control Act framed therein and Rule 22 (f) of Rules under U.P. Act 13 of 1972. , which are reproduced herein below: - "Section 34 - Powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them: - (1) The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or any [appellate or revising authority] shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry of hearing, [any appeal or revision] under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters." ................................................................................. ................................................................................. (c) inspecting a building or its locality, or issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or documents or local investigation. Rule 22 - Powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Section 34 (1)(g)]-- The District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry of hearing any appeal or revision under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters: - (f) the power referred to in Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to make any order for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the authority concerned. 6. 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. 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 Vs. 6th Additional District Judge, 1997(2) JCLR 860, Radhey Shyam Vs. A.D.J., Court no. 13, Lucknow and others, [2010(2) A.D.J., 758] and Sonpal Vs. 4th Additional District Judge, Aligarh and others, 1992 2 ARC, 596). 7. In the case of Smt. Shamshun Nisha Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Lucknow and others 1992, (1) ARC page 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." 8. In addition to above said facts for issuance of local commission for disposal of the controversy involved in the case is a sole prerogative of the Court to issue commission and no party can insist the court to issue a commission ( see : Avinash Chandra Tewari Vs. A.D.J. Court No. 3, Unnao & others, 2010 (2) ARC 84, Radha Rani Mehrotra (Smt. And 5 others Vs. Learned prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, S.D. and 2 others, 2010 (2) ARC 23 and Radhey Shayam and others Vs. Additional District Judge, Lucknow and others 2010 (2) ARC 95 ) 9. Keeping in view the said settled proposition of law as well as the findings given by the court below while rejecting the petitioner/ tenant's application for issue of commission , I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 13.4.2012 passed by Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Sultanpur. 10. For the foregoing reason, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.