- (1.) Heard Mr. Amit Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anurag Srivastav, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12th of March, 2010 in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Room No. 7, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner's applications numbered as C11, A16 & C17 have been rejected. Petitioner's Application No. C11 is for modification of order dated 24th of January, 2009, whereby the Court fixed the rent of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The application No. A16 relates to the amendment of the memo of appeal and application No. C17 relates to appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for survey of the building in dispute.
(2.) The Court below dealing with the application No. C11 has observed that by means of order dated 24th of January, 2009 the rent has been fixed by the Court after considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and on this ground the proceeding of Court below has been stayed, there is no reason to enter in the same, moreover, it has also been observed that the building in dispute is situated on the main road i.e., Khunkhun Ji Road Chok, Lucknow, which is a commercial area, in which I do not find error. So for as the application for amendment in the memo of appeal is concerned, upon perusal of the application, I find that the proposed amendments are desirable to be considered by the Court below, but the Court below has rejected the said application on the ground that same can be raised through the argument, but I feel it appropriate to allow the said application, therefore, application is allowed, the petitioner is permitted to make the said amendment in the memo of appeal.
(3.) So for as the application No. C17 is concerned the Court below has observed that the valuer has submitted his report and the petitioner has failed to submit any report, otherwise. It has also been observed that the valuer is a technical expert, whose report has more value. The reason is that it is a matter of assessment of value of the building accordingly, rent of the same building to be assessed. So for as the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is concerned he is not a technical person, therefore, the petitioner's application has been rejected, in which I do not find error. It is further clarified that I do not interfere in the order passed by the Court of appeal on the application Nos. C11 and C17, whereas the order passed on the application No. A16 is quashed and the application No. A16 is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment within a week in the memo of appeal, thereafter the Court of appeal shall proceed with the appeal and dispose of the same expeditiously say within three months after providing opportunity of the parties concerned. With the aforesaid observations/directions, writ petition is disposed of finally.;