HARI RAM Vs. SURESH CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant and is contesting proceeding for release of an accommodation which has been filed by the respondent under Section 21(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). In the release proceeding, the parties led their evidence and on 05.03.2016 on the statement of the counsel appearing for the defendant petitioner, the evidence was closed. Thereafter, on the same day, an application no. 40 Ga was filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the accommodation in dispute and submit a report as regards its condition.

(3.) By the impugned order dated 01.04.2016, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application 40 Ga on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner would not be a technical person to give a report in respect of the condition of the accommodation in dispute and, therefore, after the evidence of parties had been closed, such application was nothing but vexatious and filed with a view to delay the proceedings.