SHISHIR KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against an order rejecting the application filed by petitioners, who are tenants for issuance of commission.
(2.) THE facts arising out of present writ petition are that respondents being landlord filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of his personal need in 2003. A written statement was filed by peti­tioners and case was being contested. It is in the year 2008, an application has been filed for issuance of commission on the ground that another adjacent shop is still vacant and is in possession of respondents-landlord. The fact has to be verified for the purposes of just disposal of application filed by respondents. The application filed by petitioners was considered and by order dated 1.12.2008, same was rejected holding therein that this fact has been denied by respondents-landlord that there is any vacant shop in possession of respon­dents. Further finding has been recorded that if on the basis of evidence, the Court comes to conclusion that there is a necessity of spot inspection or for is­suance of commission, same will be done. Subsequently, another application was filed by petitioners, which was also dismissed holding the same finding by or­der dated 9.1.2009. Aggrieved by aforesaid order, petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) IT has been submitted by learned Counsel for petitioners that for the purposes of verification regarding vacant shop adjacent to the shop in dispute, issuance of commission is necessary in the interest of justice. It cannot be verified on the basis of evidence and affidavits, as such, prescribed authority has erred in law in rejecting the application. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Durga Prasad Bansal v. Smt. Vimla Devi, 2008 (71) ALR 757. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that this Court has held that if an application for issuance of commission has been filed and if the same has been rejected on the ground that it has been made only to delay the proceeding, in such circumstances, Court has passed an order directing pre­scribed authority to ensure that report of commission is submitted. In such situa­tion, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that order passed by prescribed au­thority is liable to be quashed.;