BALLOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ A.C.M.M. Vth, Kanpur Nagar in Rent case no. 18 of 2001, Abdul Mazid Vs. Sugra Begum and others, by which application (paper no. 63) moved by the petitioner tenant for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, has been rejected. Respondent landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent case no. 18 of 2001, for release of the accommodation under tenancy of the petitioner on the ground of his bonafide need. The tenant petitioner filed his written statement in the case on 2.9.2008.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority while rejecting the petitioner's application, has recorded in the impugned order that present application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner has been moved with a view to delay final disposal of the case which is pending since 2001; that by appointment of Advocate Commissioner, evidence in regard to possession cannot be permitted to be brought on record and that landlord has already produced documents regarding ownership as well as map of the accommodation in question which in clear terms establishes the position at the spot and rejected the application fixing 23.10.2010 for hearing in the matter.