Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Nirkhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.9.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar on Application Nos. 19(c) and 32(c) filed in Rent Appeal No. 115 of 2009 (Dr. Ashok Rahatgi v. Rathunandan Malviya) , by which the petitioner's application for appointment of commission has been rejected. It appears, the petitioner has filed an application under section 34(1)(c) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Rule 29 of the Rules framed thereunder, praying the court to appoint Commission for inspecting House No. 15/279, Civil Lines, Kanpur, House No. 16/54, Civil Lines, Kanpur, House No. 8/68, Arya Nagar, Kanpur and House No. 24/38, Arya Nagar, Kanpur, to the extent that how many rooms are there in each house and as to whether the entire houses are in occupation of the landlord or it has been given on rent.
(3.) To this application, an oral objection was made by the other side by submitting that the prayer for appointment of Commission for inspecting the aforesaid houses is nothing, except a device to delay the disposal of the appeal. It was also submitted that the prayer for appointment of Commission is unwarranted for the reason that these materials can be filed by the appellant through affidavit. Further, evidence cannot be collected by using the power of court.;