- (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. I have heard Sri M. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents. The basic question is whether the accommodation in dispute is in dilapidated condition. The landlords had submitted a report of the Architect/valuer wherein he had expressed his opinion that the disputed accommodation is in a dilapidated condition. The petitioner had also submitted a report of Sri S. S. Garg, Architect and Engineer, wherein he ex pressed the opinion that the roof of the building is strong and stable. Karis are strong and the roof is not sagging in any portion. During the pendency of the ap peal the petitioner filed an application for making local inspection. The Court ap pointed Advocate Commissioner. The Ad vocate Commissioner submitted report stating that the disputed shop was con structed from "lakhauri Bricks" but there was no crack in the ceiling and the walls but they were painted. The respondents filed objection stating that the painting was done in the walls and the ceiling only to avoid to show that the Karis in the ceiling and the bricks were in such a condition that they may fall down any time and such struc ture has no strength. Respondent No. 1 relying on the objection held that in fact Karis are weak and there was no justifica tion for the tenant-petitioner to have white washing/painting done on the walls and the ceiling.
(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. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case the writ petition is allowed. The order of Respondent No. 1 dated 19-8-1999 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall again decide the matter after making local inspection of the shop in question. As the matter is old it shall be decided within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;