- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the record.
(2.) Father of the Petitioners purchased the disputed premises on 21.8.1997 in the name of the Petitioners for settling his two sons namely Narendra Singh and Dileep Singh. The Petitioners preferred an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 20.12.2003 for release of the disputed premises for personal and bona fide need which was contested by the Respondent by filing written statement on 4.1.2005. On the request of the Respondent, a Court commission was issued who submitted its report on 7.10.2007 after inspection of the spot in presence of counsel for the parties. The report of the commission was confirmed by order dated 10.1.2008 with the consent of the parties subject to the evidence led by them. The tenant also immediately moved an application denying that that he had not given any warrant. This application was rejected by order dated 6.2.2008. The orders dated 10.1.2008 and 6.2.2008 were challenged by the Respondent in a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19177 of 2008 which was dismissed by this Court by order and judgment dated 15.4.2008 which is thus: The Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 10th January, 2008 and 6th February. 2008, passed by the Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 23 of 2003. The records of the writ petition indicate that the landlord-Respondent Nos. (sic)2, 3 and 4 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 Petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground that it was bona fide required. During the pendency of the release application, the Petitioner-tenant moved an application for issue of a Commission for inspection of the property in dispute. A report was submitted in respect of which objections were filed by the Petitioner-tenant. The Prescribed Authority on 10th January, 2008 accepted the report with the consent of the parties subject to evidence to be led by the parties. The Petitioner-tenant immediately moved an application for recall of the order stating that no such consent was given by him. This application filed by the Petitioner-tenant was disposed of by the Court by the order dated 6th February. 2008. The Court specifically in its order noticed that the contention of the Petitioner-tenant that no such consent was given was incorrect. The Court, however, clarified the order dated 10th January, 2008 that the report be accepted in the light of the objections filed by the parties and the evidence to be led and in case some more objections to the Commission report were filed by the tenant then they too would be examined at the time of hearing and it would be seen whether the Commission report was correct or not. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Orissa High Court in Kalandi Swain and Ors. v. Braja Kishore Dass and Ors., 1980 AIR(Ori) 98 and of the Madras High Court in Vemba Gounder v. Pooncholai Gounder, 1996 AIR(Mad) 347, in support of his contention that prior to accepting the report, the Prescribed Authority should have dealt with all the objections filed by the Petitioner-tenant to the aforesaid Commission report. The Court has recorded a finding that the report was accepted with the consent of the parties subject to evidence to be led by the parties. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-tenant that no such consent was given by him was not accepted by the Court. There is no allegation of mala fide against the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, in such circumstances it is not possible to accept the version of the counsel for the Petitioner that no such consent was given by the tenant. Be that as it may, the Court has clarified its order and no prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner-tenant. In such circumstances, there is no good reason to interfere with the orders dated 10th January, 2008 and 6th February, 2008, passed by the Prescribed Authority. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(3.) It also appears that the Respondent also moved an application for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the alleged garrage in house No. 127/1123 block W-1 Saket Nagar, Kanpur which was referred by the Court vide order dated 3.11.2008. The Respondent Neeraj Batra then preferred a Writ Petition No. 59689 of 2008 in which the Court directed the court below to reconsider the application of the Respondent for appointment of Commissioner, by means of the order dated 19.11.2008. The order runs thus: The present writ petition is being disposed of finally with an observation that if Petitioner makes another application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, Prescribed Authority will take into consideration the observation made above and after hearing both the parties will pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of filing application. It is also made clear that while considering the application filed by Petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, Prescribed Authority will not be influenced by the order dated 3.11.2008 by which application was rejected. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.;