Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel, has appeared on behalf of the landlady respondent No. 2, Tejendra Kaur Fukela, the only contesting respondent. He has also filed counter -affidavit.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed released application under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972 against tenant -petitioner in the form of P.A. Case No. 04 of 2006. Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Jhansi allowed the release application on 9.5.2007. Against the said order petitioner has filed R.C. Appeal No. 24 of 2007 which is pending. During pendency of release application before prescribed authority both the parties had filed applications for inspection. Tenant wanted to get landlord's house bearing No. 27 inspected. Landlord wanted to get the tenant's own house No. A -29 inspected. Prescribed authority passed an order directing Amin to inspect both the houses. Amin inspected the spot on 8.5.2007 after intimation to both the parties. Thereafter Amin gave report. In the report, he mentioned the position of tenant's house bearing No. A -29. Amin also mentioned that in spite of sufficient information/notice, no one had appeared on behalf of the tenant, hence Amin could no inspect landlord's house bearing No. 27. Against report of the Amin, no objection was filed, hence it was confirmed. Thereafter, an application was filed by the tenant before the prescribed authority for fresh direction to the Amin to inspect landlord's house. That application was rejected by prescribed authority through order dated 29.3.2007. Thereafter, in appeal also similar application was filed for inspection of landlord's house No. 27 by the tenant. Appellate Court/District Judge, Jhansi, rejected the said application on 31.7.2007. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.
(3.) APPELLATE Court held that as similar application had been rejected by the prescribed authority on 29.3.2007, hence fresh application was not maintainable before the Appellate Court. I do not agree with this reasoning. Appellate Court was hearing the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority, hence fresh application was quite maintainable before the Appellate Court. Of course, before the prescribed authority itself, tenant could not file a fresh application after rejection of his previous application dated 29.3.2007. However, such an application could very well be filed before the Appellate Court.;