HARISH CHANDRA JAUHARI Vs. SUNIL BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the tenant, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27th february, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the tenant for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to submit a report about the accommodation available with the landlord, has been rejected.

(2.) THE landlord filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenant from the property in dispute. It was stated that the accommodation available with him was not sufficient to meet his requirement as well as requirement of his family members. The tenant filed an objection to the aforesaid application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act and specifically stated in paragraph 3 of the written statement that the landlord had 18 rooms on the various floors, which was sufficient to meet his requirement as well as the requirement of his family members. He also stated that the site plan prepared by the landlord was not correct.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid application, the tenant filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises of the landlord since the landlord had denied the extent of the accommodation mentioned in the written statement. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority holding that nothing was mentioned by the tenant in the application, which may indicate that it was necessary for causing inspection by an Advocate Commissioner. The Prescribed Authority has further observed that this fact can be proved by the evidence on record.