The court emphasized the importance of providing cogent reasons for site inspection and map preparation, and highlighted the tenant's opportunity to lead other forms of evidence in support of his case.

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

The petitioner, who is a tenant and respondent in an application filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 registered as Rent Case No. 31 of 2013, has approached this Court challenging the order dated 23 April 2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority. Thereby, an application (Paper No. 26) filed by the petitioner for appointment of a Commissioner to prepare a site map of the building in which the petitioner is running his workshop, has been rejected.

2. The release application was filed by the landlord for release of the premises in the basement of house No. 89/142 in possession of the petitioner as tenant. The petitioner has been running his workshop from the said premises. The application moved by the petitioner for getting the site inspected has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that no cogent reason was disclosed in the application for getting the map of the building prepared by a Court Commissioner. It has been left open to the petitioner to lead other form of evidence in support of his pleadings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for ascertaining the bona fide need of the landlord and for purposes of comparison of the hardship, it was necessary to get the site plan prepared.

Perusal of the application for inspection filed by the petitioner reveals that therein no cogent reason has been disclosed as to why the petitioner wants the entire building to be inspected and a site plan prepared in regard thereto. All that has been stated in the application is that in order to ascertain the veracity of the averments made in the release application, it was necessary to get the site inspected and a plan prepared in respect of the entire building.

4. In the absence of any cogent reason having been disclosed in the application for getting the site inspected, the Prescribed Authority was fully justified in rejecting the application. It is otherwise open to the petitioner as observed by the Prescribed Authority to lead evidence in support of his case, but no exception can be taken to the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application for getting the site inspected.

5. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.