- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. This Petition has been filed by the tenant challenging order dated May 25, 1999 whereby the Prescribed Authority, exercising its powers under Section 21 (l) (a), UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No XIII of 1972) (for short called the 'act') allowed landlord's application for issuing commis sion in order to obtain spot inspection report so as to enable it to ascertain the factual position.
(2.) THE tenant's objections against the said application have been rejected. By the impugned order the Prescribed Authority has appointed a commissioner requiring him to submit its report by July 20,1999. Certified copy of the said order was ob tained, as the record shows, on May 31, 1999. Writ petition has not been filed promptly. THE Writ Petition itself is dated 2nd June, 1999 and it was got reported on 7th July, 1999. It has been filed on I9th July, 1999 and placed before this Court today (20th July, 1999) i. e. on the date fixed by the Prescribed Authority for submis sion of commissioner's report. THE petitioner, who is tenant, is resorting to delaying tactics. There is no explanation as to why writ petition was not filed between 7-7-1999 to 19-7-1999 particularly when petitioner was conscious that it would be infructuous if matter was not heard on or before 19th July, 1999. The petition suffers from laches. Moreover, by appointing commis sion, Court has not prejudiced substantial rights of the parties. The matter is still to be heard and decided by the Prescribed Authority. Issuance of commission will help the Prescribed Authority in ascer taining factual position. Thus, on merits no ground for interference is made out.
(3.) THE Writ Petition is devoid of merits and dismissed summarily at admis sion stage. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Respondent No. 1 (Prescribed Authority, Jhansi) Court within one week from today. Petition dismissed. .;