Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 215 (ALL)

Hari Ram v. Suresh Chand Gupta

2017-01-16

MANOJ MISRA

body2017
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a tenant and is contesting proceeding for release of an accommodation which has been filed by the respondent under Section 21(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). In the release proceeding, the parties led their evidence and on 05.03.2016 on the statement of the counsel appearing for the defendant petitioner, the evidence was closed. Thereafter, on the same day, an application no. 40 Ga was filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the accommodation in dispute and submit a report as regards its condition. 3. By the impugned order dated 01.04.2016, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application 40 Ga on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner would not be a technical person to give a report in respect of the condition of the accommodation in dispute and, therefore, after the evidence of parties had been closed, such application was nothing but vexatious and filed with a view to delay the proceedings. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in a revision before the Court of Additional District and Session Judge/Fast Tract Court No.1, Gorakhpur, who dismissed the revision by order dated 01.12.2016. 5. Assailing the orders passed by the courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Section 34 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the Court of Prescribed Authority has ample powers to call for a report in respect of local inspection of the property concerned and since the proceedings had been instituted under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, the local inspection report of the Court appointed Amin in respect of the accommodation in dispute was necessary and such application ought not to have been rejected. 6. I have carefully perused the orders passed by the courts below. 7. A perusal thereof would go to show that the landlord-respondent had filed a report of an Engineer in support of his case and had also filed his affidavit to demonstrate that the building in dispute was in a dilapidated condition. 6. I have carefully perused the orders passed by the courts below. 7. A perusal thereof would go to show that the landlord-respondent had filed a report of an Engineer in support of his case and had also filed his affidavit to demonstrate that the building in dispute was in a dilapidated condition. The tenant-petitioner had full opportunity to file evidence in rebuttal and for that purpose, he could have filed a report of an Engineer or a technical hand disclosing condition of the building. The application for inspection of an Advocate Commissioner would not have served the purpose because an advocate cannot be considered to be a technical hand and therefore under the circumstances if the court below had rejected the application on the ground that on the one hand the defendant-petitioner had led evidence and had made a statement that no further evidence was required to be led on his part whereas on the other hand, he called for a report from an Advocate Commissioner, who could not have been in a position to dispute the report submitted by a technical hand, no fault can be found with the order of the court below. I, therefore, do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. 8. The petition is dismissed.