JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for the following relief: "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgments and orders dated 21.11.2017 (contained in Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Agra dismissing Misc. Appeal No. 126 of 2016, Smt. Meena Begum v. Naim Khan and 03.08.2016 (contained in Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 5, Agra allowing Release Application, registered as P.A. Case No. 64 of 2013, Naim Kha v. Meena Begum). (b) issue such other writ, order or direction as may be deemed to be necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted. (c) award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner." 3. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant has submitted as under: (i) Notice under 1st Proviso to Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is mandatory, which was given and as such the application under Section 21 (1) (a) filed by the plaintiff- landlord/respondent No. 3 was maintainable. (ii) The application for issue of Commission (Paper No. 69Ga) for inspection of Property No. 28/420 and 28/390, Bindaganj, Chhatta Ward, Agra and property No. 18/86, Mantola, Agra, was arbitrarily and illegally rejected. The issue of commission for inspection of the aforesaid three houses was necessary for determination of the question of bona fide need of the plaintiff-landlord/respondent No. 3. Therefore, both the impugned judgments are wholly erroneous and based on relevant evidences on record. (iii) The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 has completely failed to establish his bona fide and genuine need. Therefore, in the absence of bona fide need, the impugned judgments directing for release under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act, is wholly arbitrary and illegal. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the leaned counsel for the defendant- petitioner/tenant and perused the record of this writ petition. 5. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the House No. 28/480, Bindaganj, Chhatta Ward, Agra in which one Sri Mohd. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the leaned counsel for the defendant- petitioner/tenant and perused the record of this writ petition. 5. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the House No. 28/480, Bindaganj, Chhatta Ward, Agra in which one Sri Mohd. Jamil Uddin was a tenant of one shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. After his death, the defendant-petitioner being his wife succeeded the tenancy and became a tenant. The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is engaged in the business of manufacture of Piston with his three sons namely, Sri Asif Khan, Kasif Khan and Sri Arif Khan, who are residing in the house situate at Mantola, Agra. 6. On the ground of bona fide need, the plaintiff-landlord/respondent No. 3 filed a P.A. Case No. 64 of 2013, which has been decreed by the impugned judgment dated 3.8.2016. 7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the defendant-petitioner/tenant filed Misc. Appeal No. 126 of 2016, Smt. Meena Begum v. Sri Naeem Khan, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 12), Agra. 8. Now the defendant-petitioner/tenant has filed the preset writ petition challenging the aforesaid judgments. 9. It is undisputed that the plaintiff-landlord/respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the disputed house No. 28/480, Bindaganj, Chhatta Ward, Agra. In this house there are three shops. The plaintiff-landlord had let out one shop to Sri Mohd. Jameel Uddin and after his death, the tenancy was succeeded by his wife Smt. Meena Begum, who is the tenant-petitioner. Thus, the landlord-tenant relationship is in dispute. 10. The first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 2017 provides that where the building was in occupation of a tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, such purchase being made after the commencement of the Act, no application shall be entertained on the grounds, mentioned in Clause (a), unless a period of 3 years has elapsed since the date of such purchase and the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant less than six months before such application, and such notice may be given even before the expiration of the aforesaid period of three years. 11. The disputed house was purchased by the plaintiff-landlord in the year 1990. 11. The disputed house was purchased by the plaintiff-landlord in the year 1990. He issued a notice dated 26.6.2006 to the tenant namely, Sri Mohd. Jamiluddin (husband of the defendant-petitioner) by registered post for vacating the disputed shop. Copy of this notice, the postal receipt and acknowledgement were filed in evidence. This notice was well served upon the original tenant namely, Sri Jamiluddin i.e. the husband of the defendant/ petitioner. 12. The husband of the defendant-petitioner as well as the defendant-petitioner have been paying rent to the plaintiff-landlord/respondent No. 3. They admitted him to be the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. After about 23 years of purchase of the house in question in which the disputed shop is situate, the plaintiff-landlord filed P.A. Case No. 64 of 2013. Thus, I do find any substance in the first submission of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner regarding non issuance of notice under the 1st Proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The findings recorded in this regard in the impugned judgments are findings of fact, which are based on consideration of relevant evidences on record and, therefore, it cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The second submission for attacking on the impugned judgments on the ground of rejection of the application for Advocate Commission, is also wholly misconceived. 14. Perusal of the order dated 20.5.2016 in P.A. Case No. 64 of 2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 5, Agra, shows that the application 69-C was filed by the defendant-petitioner for inspection of three houses i.e. Property No. 28/420 and 28/390, Bindaganj, Chhatta Ward, Agra, and property No. 18/86, Mantola, Agra. The court below found that the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 has set up bona fide need of the disputed shop for one of his son. The allegation of the defendant-petitioner was that during pendency of the P.A. Case, the plaintiff-landlord has let out one shop to one Sri Salim in February 2016. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that such allegation may be established by filing evidence. 15. It is settled law that a Commission cannot be issued for collecting evidence. The allegation of the defendant-petitioner was that during pendency of the P.A. Case, the plaintiff-landlord has let out one shop to one Sri Salim in February 2016. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that such allegation may be established by filing evidence. 15. It is settled law that a Commission cannot be issued for collecting evidence. It can be issued in cases where on evidences led by the parties, Court is 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 of 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 the Court is expected to visit the site for collecting evidence. This legal position has been settled by various judgments including the judgment of this Court dated 20.9.2017 in Matters Under Article 227 No. 5868 of 2017, Yupendrakalara v. Pradeep Singal (Para Nos. 8 to 12. Under the circumstances, I do find any substance in the second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner. Consequently, the second submission is also rejected. 16. The third submission of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the landlord has sufficient accommodation and, therefore, his need for the disputed shop was not bona fide or genuine. The findings recorded in this regard in the impugned judgments are concurrent findings of fact based on relevant evidences on record and, therefore, it cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. 17. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any substance in this writ petition. Therefore the writ petition fails and, is hereby, dismissed. 18. After this order was dictated in open Court, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner states on instructions that the defendant-petitioner is ready to give an undertaking on oath that she shall vacate the disputed shop on or before 31.7.2018 and shall hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-landlord/respondent No. 3 and, therefore, till then no coercive action may be taken against her to vacate the disputed shop. It is also stated that she shall also deposit with the court below a sum of Rs. 5,000/- within four weeks towards use and occupation of the disputed shop for the aforesaid period. 19. It is also stated that she shall also deposit with the court below a sum of Rs. 5,000/- within four weeks towards use and occupation of the disputed shop for the aforesaid period. 19. Considering the statement so made, it is provided that in the event the defendant- petitioner submits the undertaking on oath as aforesaid before the Prescribe Authority within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order and also deposits a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as mentioned above as well as the decretal amount within the same period then in that event no coercive action shall be taken against the defendant-petitioner for dispossessing him from the disputed shop till 31.7.2018. In the event, either the undertaking as aforesaid, is not submitted by the defendant-petitioner and the amounts as aforementioned are not deposited within the stipulated time; then the protection as given above shall automatically stand vacated. In the event, the disputed shop is not vacated and its peaceful and vacant possession is not handed over by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff-respondent No. 3, then in that event, the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 shall be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings against the defendant-petitioner including the proceeding for contempt.