JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the validity of the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Rae Bareli whereby the application moved by the petitioner for issuing a commission to gather certain facts has been rejected. 3. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 22 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against the judgement and order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority is still pending. 4. During pendency of appeal, an application was preferred by the petitioner stating therein that it is necessary to ascertain as to whether the premises in question is being used for residential or commercial purpose and for the said purpose the commission be issued. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provision of Section 34 which empowers the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority to inspect a building or issue commission for examination of witnesses or documents or local investigation. 6. No doubt the said power is vested in the said authorities, however, it is the discretion of the authority concerned to take recourse to the provision of Section 34 (1) (c) of the Act. The appellate authority in the impugned order has clearly given a finding that the assertions for which the petitioner intends to get commission issued can be proved by the leading evidence before the court below. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has been using the premises in question as a shop whereas the case put forth by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is that in fact, the premises in question is residential in nature and the petitioner has kept certain articles from the shop which he runs from elsewhere. 7. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid fact can be proved or established by leading evidence by the petitioner. In fact, issuing commission cannot be a substitute for leading evidence. 8. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petition is, thus, dismissed. 9. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.