Hon'ble Anil Kumar - (1.) HEARD Sri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) THE controversy involved in the present case is in respect to release of two door shop situated in the house No. 133/189, Puma Ganesh Ganj, Aminabad Road, P.S. Naka Hindola, Lucknow under the tenancy of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. On 29.7.2004. release application has been moved (Registered as PA. Case No. 549 of 2004) under Section 21 (1 )(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, written statement filed on 16.8.2007. During the pendency of the matter before Prescribed Authority as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, an application for issue of commission moved not considered by the trial Court on one hand and on the other hand by means of a judgment and order dated 15.7.2008 (Annexdure No 4) release application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (RentAppeal No. 29 of 2008) filed. In the said appeal, an application under Section 34(1)(c) read with Rule 22(f) of the U.P. Act, 1972 filed with a prayer to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner for a local inspection of Building No. 133/189, Old Ganesh Ganj, Aminabad, Lucknowand building No. 566/19, Jai Prakash Nagar, Alambagh, P.S. Alambagh, Lucknow at the cost of tenant/petitioner.
(3.) ON 5.11.2008, landlord/respondents filed objection, after considering the point in respect to issue of local commission on merit, appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow vide order dated 16 February, 2009 rejected the same with the following observations : "Further, the appellants have still opportunity to raise the plea at the time of argument. I am of the opinion that there is no need of appointing an Advocate- Commissioner for local inspection of Building No. 133/189, Old Ganesh Ganj, Aminabad, Luck now and building No. 566/19, jai Prakash Nagar, Alambagh, Alambagh, Lucknow." Hence the present writ petition has been filed.;