JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri A.K.Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur in P.A. Case No. 26 of 2016 whereby the application (Application No. 52-Ga) filed by the petitioner under Section 34 (1) (c) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Rule 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 has been rejected.

3. The records of the case indicate that upon an application for release having been filed under Section 21 (1) (a) by the respondent-landlord setting up his bonafide need, P.A. Case No. 26 of 2016 (Onkar Arora Vs. Sanjay alias Mathura) was registered. The parties had put in their appearance and after exchange of pleadings, the evidence of both the parties was closed on 10.07.2018, and after 25.07.2018 the case was being listed for arguments. On 07.03.2019 the arguments on behalf of the applicant-landlord were concluded, and the matter was posted for arguments of the defendant-tenant. It was at this stage that an application (Application No. 52-Ga) was filed by the petitioner-tenant for obtaining a demarcation report by Amin Commissioner in respect of certain other properties which were said to be in possession of the applicant-landlord. The aforementioned application came to be rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 01.05.2019 and thereafter the present petition has been filed.

4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that an application having been made under Section 34 (1) (c) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for inspection and issuance of a commission for demarcation of other properties which were in possession of the respondent-landlord the court below has erred in rejecting the said application.

5. It is undisputed that after the parties had put in their appearance and pleadings had been exchanged the evidence of the parties had been closed on 10.7.2018 and after 25.7.2018 dates were being fixed for arguments. The arguments on behalf of the respondent-landlord had been concluded on 7.3.2019 and thereafter the case was posted for arguments on behalf of the defendant-tenant and it was at this stage of the proceedings that the petitioner-tenant had sought a direction for inspection and issuance of a commission under Section 34 (1) (c) of the Act of 1972.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case the provisions of Section 34 (1) of the Act of 1972 may be adverted to.

"Section 34 - Power of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them:- (1) The District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or any[Appellate or Revising Authority] shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing [any appeal or revision] under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely,--

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(c) inspecting a building or its locality, or issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or documents or local investigation;

(d) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(e) awarding, subject to any rules made in that behalf, costs or special costs to any parts or requiring security for costs from any party;

(f) recording a lawful agreement, compromise or satisfaction and making an order in accordance therewith;

(g) any other matter which may be prescribed."

7. Rule 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 which is with regard to the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 conferred on the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate or Revising Authority may also be referred to. Rule 22 is being extracted below.

"Rule 22 - Powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Section 34(1)