Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.7.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 277 of 2013 (Lokesh v. Ravi) and the order dated 25.5.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court Meerut in P.A. Case No. 61 of 2009 (Ravi Kumar and others v. Lokesh Kumar Rastogi). vide order dated 25.5.2013 the petitioner’s application (66-Ga) has been rejected whereas by the subsequent order dated 16.7.2013 the petitioner’s appeal which was registered as Misc. Case No. 277 of 2013 has been rejected being not maintainable taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokulchand, AIR 1967 SC 799.

2. The petitioner has filed an application for appointment of Amin Commission for ascertaining the fact about existence of 20 shops situated in Shankar Market, which according to the petitioners are the part of landlord’s property No. 182, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt. and out of them number of shops are vacant so that the petitioner-tenant can lead his evidence. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that Commission cannot be issued for collecting the evidence on the insistence of a party. Further the same has been filed belatedly at the time of disposal of the release application.

3. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Commission cannot be issued for collecting the evidence. Further it cannot be claimed to be issued as a matter of right.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Here in this case, it is apparent that the P.A. case is still pending and such cases are of summary in nature and decided on the basis of exchange of affidavits. In case any of the party want to bring some facts in the notice of the party, it is always open for it to state the same in the form of affidavit and file evidence in support of that.

5. It appears proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was initiated against the petitioner for vacating the shop in dispute in the year 2009 on the ground that the said shop is needed for establishing the wife of the landlord in business, the petitioner has also filed the aforesaid application to which an objection was filed by the respondent stating therein that it is only with a view to delay the proceeding of the case the application has been filed on the irrelevant grounds. The learned prescribed authority has rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that the same has been filed with a view to delay the proceeding with the further observation that the commission cannot be issued for collecting the evidence.

6. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order through appeal which has been been dismissed being not maintainable as the same has been filed against an interlocutory order. While assailing these orders Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the prescribed authority has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application. In his submission in such cases commission can be issued. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Radhey Sham Rastogi v. Ashish Kumar and another, (2008) 10 SCC 225. Attention of the Court has been invited towards paragraph No. 7 of the aforesaid judgment.

7. This Court in the case of Tushar Kumar Shah v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, 2012 (1) ARC 909, has held that the Commission cannot be issued for the purposes of collecting evidence on behalf of either party.

8. In Jaya Kalia (Smt.) v. Smt. Manju Agarwal, 2009 (3) ARC 799, this Court has held that if the contents of the affidavit filed on behalf of the landlord are not cor