JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner and Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order dated 21.2.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar, in Rent Case No. 102 of 2016 (Anil Kumar Bhasin v. Radhey Shyam Singh), whereby the application being paper No. 37 filed by the defendant-tenant/petitioner for issue of commission to inspect the accommodation in occupation of the landlord, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner submits that application for issue of commission has been erroneously rejected by the court below. The impugned order deserves to be quashed in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Rastogi v. Ashish Kumar and another, AIR 2008 (10) SCC 225 and the judgment of this Court in Kishore Seth v. Prescribed Authority/1st C.J. (Jr. D), Kanpur Nagar and another 2009 (2) ARC 74. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondent supports the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The plaintiff-landlord/respondent has filed the above noted rent case under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 on the ground of his bona fide need for the disputed accommodation in occupation of the tenant-petitioner. About two years have passed but the defendant-tenant/petitioner has not yet led his evidence, which fact has also been admitted by learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner before me. 7. It is settled law that 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 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 Court is not expected to visit the site for collecting evidence. 8. The principles aforementioned is supported by the law laid down by this Court in Mohd. 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 Court is not expected to visit the site for collecting evidence. 8. The principles aforementioned is supported by the law laid down by this Court in Mohd. Ali v. Prescribed Authority, Moradabad and others, Writ-A No. 31854 of 2017 decided on 29.08.2017 and in M/s. Gujrati Namkeen Bhandar v. Ratan Lal Gupta & 3 Ors. (Matters Under Article 227 No. 5625 of 2017) decided on 12.09.2017. No such circumstances exist in the present case which may require issue of Commission. 9. The proceeding under the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is a summary proceeding which is statutorily required to be concluded expeditiously. The intention of the legislature for expeditious disposal of application under Section 21(1) of the Act is evident from Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 which provides that such application, as far as possible, be decided within 2 months from the date of its presentation. Thus, it is evident that expeditious disposal of application under Section 21(1) of the Act is the statutory mandate but the P.A. Case filed by the plaintiff-respondent is pending before the court below from about two years. 10. The defendant-tenant/petitioner has not led his evidence so far despite opportunities afforded by the court below. It appears that the defendant-tenant is more interested to delay the disposal of the case and thus to defeat the statutory mandate of expeditious disposal. He is moving successive applications so as to delay the disposal of the case. There is nothing on record to indicate the existence of circumstances requiring issue of commission as mentioned in paragraph 7 above. Under the circumstances, I do not find any error of law in the impugned order. 11. The judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Rastogi (supra) relied by the defendant-tenant/petitioner is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In the said case it was found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the only ground set up by the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant was that his disputed house is in dilapidated and dangerous condition for which demolition and reconstruction was required. In the said case it was found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the only ground set up by the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant was that his disputed house is in dilapidated and dangerous condition for which demolition and reconstruction was required. No report of any expert regarding dilapidated and dangerous condition of the disputed house requiring demolition, was filed. In these circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed for appointment of an Engineer Commissioner to inspect the house and submit report before the High Court and thereafter the writ petition be decided. In the case of Kishore Seth (supra) the order for inspection by Advocate Commission was passed on the agreement of the respondent-landlord for inspection by the Prescribed Authority through an Advocate Commissioner. Thus, both the judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioners are wholly distinguishable on facts of the present case. 12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, observed that the concerned court below shall decide the above noted rent case, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.