Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders dated 5.9.2013 and 11.12.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Lucknow, in Rent Appeal No. 33/2012, whereby two applications for issue of survey commission have been rejected.
(2.) The subject matter of the dispute is House No.86/249, Mohalla Maqboolganj, Kurmi Tola, Ram Gopal Vidyant Road, Lucknow. The opposite party no.2 filed an application for release under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act No.13 of 1972 claiming himself to be the owner and land-lord of the said house on the basis of a Will executed by Mohan Lal Kalwar in favour of Om Prakash Jaiswal. The application of release was filed on the ground of bonafide need. During the pendency of the release application the petitioners on 4.7.2011 moved an application for survey commission which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 14.7.2011. Thereafter the application for release was allowed.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the release order, the petitioners filed appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 which is presently pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Lucknow. As the Prescribed Authority had refused to issue survey commission, the petitioners again applied before appellate court for local inspection vide application dated 31.5.2013 and the petitioners prayed that the court may also inspect the premises in dispute, so that the controversy between the parties may be adjudicated. The said application was rejected by the learned appellate court vide order dated 5.9.2013 on the ground that there was no need for local inspection of the property. However, the learned appellate court observed that if at the time of argument it was felt necessary to inspect the property,l the court shall himself inspect the property after informing the parties.;