VINOD KUMAR Vs. DINA NATH AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 23.3.2005, passed by the appellate authority in a pending appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 whereby an application No. 33C filed by the petitioner-tenant has been rejected by the appellate authority.

(2.) The said application was filed by the petitioner with the prayer that because of certain observations made by the prescribed authority in the order appealed against, it is necessary and in the interest of justice that the inspection may be made. An objection has been filed by the respondent to the aforesaid application. The appellate authority has considered the application and the objection and did not find any force in the application for local inspection and therefore rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Rule 27 framed under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which is reproduced below and submits that in view of the Rule 27 the appellate authority has committed an error in rejecting the application.

(3.) A reading of Rule 27 clearly demonstrates that when the authority concerned arrives at the conclusion that the inspection is necessary only then inspection can be made. In the present case, since the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that no case for inspection is made out, the Rule 27 is not applicable.