JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manas Bhargava, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the judgment of the Prescribed Authority in holding the building to be in a dilapidated condition so as to release the same in favour of landlord under Section 21(1) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act No. 13 of 1972'). 3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner before this Court that the two technical reports were placed before the Prescribed Authority, one in favour of landlord and the other one in favour of tenant. The Prescribed Authority rejected both the reports and directed Advocate Commissioner's report. The Advocate Commissioner did submit a report before the Prescribed Authority after conducting inspection without the help of any technical expert and just only on the basis of visual inspection made by him while he inspected the building. This report was neither supported by any map made for the said purpose, nor the report was accompanied by any photograph of the building, and hence petitioner filed a detailed objection to the Advocate Commissioner's report questioning the authenticity of report itself. This objection remained pending consideration before the Prescribed Authority while the matter was finally heard, whereas, the objection submitted over report remained pending for orders. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the objection of the petitioner against the report of Advocate Commissioner was earlier directed to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the case. However, it is argued that when the matter was finally heard and decided, the Prescribed Authority did not even consider the objection filed by the petitioner to the Advocate Commissioner's report and he straight away relied upon the said report to conclude and hold that the building was in a dilapidated condition. However, it is argued that when the matter was finally heard and decided, the Prescribed Authority did not even consider the objection filed by the petitioner to the Advocate Commissioner's report and he straight away relied upon the said report to conclude and hold that the building was in a dilapidated condition. A legal argument therefore, advanced is that in the absence of consideration of the objection filed to the report, recording a finding that building in question was in a dilapidated condition on the basis of such a disputed report is a case of gross impropriety on the part of authority concerned while exercising quasi judicial power and therefore, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority deserved to be held unsustainable. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Amar Nath Tandon v. G.K.Bhargava, 1987-AWC-2-877. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent landlord submits that once the two technical reports available with the court were rejected being in contradiction of each other, the Court was left with no other option but to appoint the Advocate Commissioner to obtain a report of the fact condition of the building in question on the spot. He submits that a report of Advocate Commissioner is not required to be proved as such and a consideration of the objection to the report would be sufficient enough. He submits that the court can proceed to believe the report on facts and decide as to whether the building is in dilapidated condition or not. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Shamim Ahmad v. District Judge, Etah and others, 2000 (2) A.R.C. 543 and another judgment of this Court in Ram Prasad v. Smt. Shashi Chaurasiya, 2018 (3) A.R.C. 743. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar, I find the moot legal question involved in the case to be, as to whether the Advocate Commissioner's report was worth reliance, more especially in the face of the fact that a detailed objection to the same had been filed and so how far court was justified in not discussing the objection in its order while arriving at a finding of fact absolutely based upon an Advocate Commissioner's report. 7. 7. The relevant fact that needed consideration in the present case while granting an application under Section 21(1)(b) of Act No. 13 of 1972 would be to come to a definite finding as to whether the building has really arrived in such a dilapidated condition that it is not worth human living and if immediate repair or in case if demolition of the structure is not carried out it may cause fatal injuries to the inhabitants of the building. 8. Ordinarily, neither the court, nor the lawyers as such could have that technical skill and expertise to reach by themselves to a definite view regarding condition of a building without visiting the spot with a team of technical experts and therefore, in such situation report of technical expert of the field concerned, should have been obtained, no matter that the reports earlier placed were contradictory to each other. It is well within the jurisdiction of the Court to call for a fresh report from the technical expert by requiring parties to accord their consent for the same. 9. In the instant case, what I find is that instead of resorting to the above action, the court proceeded to appoint Advocate Commissioner to submit a report. A simpliciter appointment of Advocate Commissioner to call for a report qua the condition of a building in the present case resulted in submission of report of Advocate Commissioner based on mere observation by his eyes. Interestingly this report was not even supported by photographs taken on the spot so as to form a definite view that what was there observed in the report was the correct observation. Hence, a detailed objection was correcting filed by the other side questioning the report. Whether a report would be admissible in evidence or otherwise a mere reliance can be placed could be a relevant factor but once the objection has been taken to the report, the court was hide bound in law to dispose of those very objections before proceeding to rely upon the report. It would definitely be a case of gross impropriety and needed immediate arrest in my exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would definitely be a case of gross impropriety and needed immediate arrest in my exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the court instead of discussing the objection, straightaway proceeded to believe the Advocate Commissioner's report to record a finding of fact that building was in a dilapidated condition, it does not appeal to common sense which is a must for dispensation of justice. 10. In my above view I find support from the judgment of this Court cited by learned Senior Advocate in the case of Amar Nath Tandon (supra), wherein, vide para 10 the court has held thus: "10. Sri Rajendra Nath Saxena, Advocate, was appointed as Commissioner who after executing the commission submitted his report dated 18.3.81 (Annexure-13) with which the maps prepared by him were also annexed, the petitioner was not satisfied with the report and, therefore, he raised objections (contained in Annexure-14) in which the extent of the accommodation shown by the commissioner was disputed and it was pleaded that the commissioner's report was liable to be rejected. The Prescribed Authority without disposing of the objections on merits passed the order as under:-"Let the Commissioner's report Ga-24 be confirmed subject to objection Ga-26". A perusal of the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority as also by the appellate court indicates that the report of the commissioner has been relied upon in recording concurrent findings as to the extent of accommodation in occupation of the landlords, as also in occupation of the petitioner without adverting to the objections filed by the petitioner. The objections remained undisposed of and the commissioner's report was clindly relied upon not only by the Prescribed Authority but also by the appellate court. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 27th April, 1981 himself had confirmed the report "subject to objections." It was, therefore, his duty to have considered the objections at the time of the hearing of the case and to dispose of those objections on merits before proceeding to rely upon the report. This having not been done, the report of the Commissioner was not available for consideration. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Harbans Lal v. Jag Mohan Saran, 1985 AWC 903 has held that unless the objections against the commissioner's report are disposed of, the report does not become final and cannot be taken into consideration. This having not been done, the report of the Commissioner was not available for consideration. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Harbans Lal v. Jag Mohan Saran, 1985 AWC 903 has held that unless the objections against the commissioner's report are disposed of, the report does not become final and cannot be taken into consideration. In view of this decision the report of the Commissioner contained in Annexure-14 was not, as observed earlier, available for consideration either by the Prescribed Authority or by the appellate court." (Emphasis added) 11. In so far as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the contesting respondent is concerned, I find that in the case of Shamim Ahmad (supra), the Court was more concerned with the issue where the application for Commission was rejected and which had not been appealed against. This is not an issue before this Court, nor this point has ever cropped up before the court below while deciding the matter. The question of issuance of Commission is not a point in issue here and therefore, the judgment is distinguishable on facts and in my considered view it is not of any help to the respondents. 12. In so far as the judgment in the case of Ram Prasad (supra) is concerned in that case there was a Engineer's report available before the court and there was an affidavit also filed in support thereof that the building may have collapsed at any point of time. The report as was discussed and believed in the said case, was rightly so done but here I do not find any such report available from any technical expert. Judgment is therefore, again distinguishable on facts being in particular set of facts of that case and so is of no help to contesting respondents. 13. Sri Manas Bhargava very fairly concedes at this stage that the objection filed by the petitioner had remained undisposed of even at the stage of final hearing of the mater while the court proceeded to believe that Advocate Commissioner's report that was seriously objected. 14. 13. Sri Manas Bhargava very fairly concedes at this stage that the objection filed by the petitioner had remained undisposed of even at the stage of final hearing of the mater while the court proceeded to believe that Advocate Commissioner's report that was seriously objected. 14. In such above view of the mater, therefore, I am not able to sustain the findings returned by the trial court as well as the findings returned by the court of appeal confirming the findings of the Prescribed Authority on the issue whether the building was in a dilapidated condition and deserved release under Section 21(1)(b) of Act No. 13 of 1972. Both the orders are hereby set aside. 15. Matter is remitted to the Prescribed Authority to be decided afresh after considering the objections of the petitioner to the Advocate Commissioner's report and disposing of the same first. It is further provided that it would be more desirable if the court proceeds to call for an expert report in respect of the condition of the building in question so that proper adjudication of the point is done for considering the application for release under Section 21(1)(b) of Act No. 13 of 1972. 16. Both the parties shall appear on or before 25.11.2022 before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter finally in the light of observations made herein above and also by giving full opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further provided that in the meanwhile, the petitioner would continue to pay rent as he has been paying till now. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands allowed with no order as to cost.