Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9523 of 2021

Petitioner :- Purushottam

Respondent :- Small Cause Court Meerut And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Chandra Gupta

Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sagar

Mehrotra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinayak Mithal,

Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the order

dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A.

Case No. 24 of 2017, whereby the application of the petitioner,

who is defendant in the suit, to issue Amin Commission on his

expenses to get clear report of situation of shop in dispute

was rejected.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court below

has wrongly rejected his application praying for calling of Amin

Commission report. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2

and 3 has opposed the argument and has submitted that

the proceedings are pending under Section 21(1)(b) of U.p. Act

No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority since the year

2017. Only to further delay the disposal of the case, this

application was filed on 07.08.2019 which was rejected on

10.03.2021 after several dates. The opposite party has managed

to delay the proceedings for about two years as yet only on

the basis of this application. He has submitted that the order

passed by the Prescribed Authority does not suffers from any

illegality and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After hearing the counsels for the parties and going through the

application dated 07.08.2019, Paper No. 50-Ga, filed by the

petitioner before the Prescribed Authority for calling for a

report of Amin Commissioner, this Court does not finds any

justification for filing such an application by the petitioner. In

the application aforesaid, it is only stated that for correct

decision on merits, the correct situation of the shop is required

to be brought before the authority by means of

Amin Commission report. If such a report is not called, the

petitioner will suffer irreparable harm and loss.

In proceedings of release under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act

No. 13 of 1972, there is no dispute regarding situation of the

shop nor any such issue has been raised by the petitioner in his

objection. The Prescribed Authority has rightly held that the

application has been filed for release of accommodation and

whether the accommodation/ shop is bonafidely required by the

landlord or not is to be decided. In case, the petitioner wants to

lead some evidence in this regard, he is free to do so but

issuance of Amin Commission does not appears to be justified

and has rejected the application.

The order of the Prescribed Authority does not suffers from any

illegality and calls for no interference by this Court.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,

dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.8.2021

Rohit