In a landlord-tenant dispute, where the landlord seeks release of accommodation under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, the court has the power to inspect the accommodation in dispute through a Commissioner in order to ascertain the veracity of the petitioner's averments regarding additional accommodation added by the landlords.

R. P. Singh, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order passed by Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 14-8-1987.

2. The facts of this case are that respondents 2 to 6, the landlord respondents, filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 for the release of the accommodation in dispute which application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority against which order the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlords filed an application for admission of the additional evidence to show that the number of family members of respondent-landlords have increased and hence the need of the landlords is more pressing. This application was opposed by the petitioner but the landlords' application for additional evidence was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge and the petitioner was allowed time to file evidence in rebuttal of the same. The petitioner have averred that during the pendency of these proceedings the landlord-respondents, who got possession of the accommodation prosecutely in their possession from late L. Chandra Advocate in the year 1981 and thereafter got it renovated and made additions to the portion in their possession resulting in increase of the accommodation in possession of the landlords and hence moved an application before the learned Additional District Judge that an inspection may be allowed to be made through a Commissioner appointed by the Court who may be directed to make the inspection and submit the report which may be taken into account in rebuttal of the evidence that has been filed as additional evidence before the learned Additional District Judge. This application was opposed by the landlord-respondents and the Additional District Judge rejected the application vide his order dated 14-8-1987 which order is subject to challenge in this writ petition.

The contention of the learned counsel for the landlord-respondents is that the application for issuing commission for inspection was rightly rejected by the Additional District Judge as there was no material on the basis of which the inspection of the accommodation in possession of the landlord was prayed for by the petitioners and that the discretion exercised by the learned Additional District Judge has not been arbitrarily exercised and this being an interlocutory order, no interference under Article 226 should be made.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have taken note of the objection which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. The narration of facts stated above would disclose that at the appellate stage the landlords bad filed an application as adducing additional evidence which application was allowed by the Additional District Judge. Since by the additional evidence the landlords wanted to show that the number of their family members have gone up and hence in rebuttal the petitioner wanted to show by means of an inspection made by a commission appointed by the Court that the accommodation in possession of the landlords has also increased after the renovation, addition and alterations made by the landlords after the same was vacated by its erstwhile tenant Sri L. Chandra. It has been stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the landlord that one of the points involved in the case is the extent of accommodation with the landlord and annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner indicates that it was averred by the petitioners that the landlords have been making certain alterations in the accommodation in their possession by which they have been converting the varandah facing the northern-eastern side into rooms hence it appears that in order to show that the accommodation in possession of the landlords have increased after the addition and alterations made by them, the petitioner filed the application