KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 20-8-1992 al-, lowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) and the order of the Appel late Authority dated 19-8-1999 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE landlord-respondents filed ap plication for release of the disputed ac commodation on the allegation that it was in dilapidated condition. THE petitioner filed objection and dented the averment, the petitioner as well as the landlord both filed reports of their Architects/valuer. THEy submitted contradictory reports. THE Prescribed Authority, on considera tion of the reports, recorded finding that the disputed accommodation is in dilapidated condition and allowed the ap plication by order dated 20- 8-1992. THE petitioner preferred an appeal against he said order. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed an application for making spot inspection. Respondent No. 1 appointed an Advocate Commis sioner to make local inspection and submit a report. THE Advocate Commissioner submitted report dated 7-1-1998 before Respondent No. 1. Against this report ob jection was filed by the landlord respon dents. THE Appellate Authority has dis missed the appeal vide impugned order dated 19-8-1999.

(3.) ONCE there was an objection against the report of the Commissioner, it was the duty of the Court either to make local inspection itself or to appoint another commission in the matter. The Court was not justified to record finding merely on the basis of the objection by the respondents.