Local investigation commission cannot be issued to collect evidence or fill lacunae if adequate record exists.

The petitioner (tenant) challenged orders passed by the Prescribed Authority (27.11.2024) and the Appellate Authority (11.09.2025) rejecting his applications for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local investigation of property nos. 32/1/6 and 32/1/7 in Agra.

Respondent No. 1 (landlord) had filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

The petitioner contended that the building was a new construction (2000–2002) and thus exempt from the Act’s operation.

He sought a commission to verify physical RCC features to prove this age.

The authorities rejected the plea, noting that adequate documentary evidence (municipal records) already existed on record.

Whether the authorities below committed any jurisdictional error or material illegality in rejecting the petitioner's applications seeking appointment of a Commissioner under Section 34(1)(c) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 read with Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for local investigation.

Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which provides statutory tests for the "completion of construction" based on municipal reports, assessments, or actual occupation.

Section 34(1)(c) of the same Act, which grants authorities procedural powers equivalent to a Civil Court regarding local investigations.

Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC, which stipulates that a commission is discretionary and may be issued only when "requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute".

Precedents such as Sanjay alias Mathura v. Onkar Arora [para 29] and Ranbir Singh Sheoran v. VIth ADJ [para 30] were cited to establish that a commission cannot be used to collect evidence, fill lacunae, or perform a roving inquiry.

The Court reasoned that the power to appoint a Commissioner is purely discretionary and not a vested right of a litigant.

It found that the petitioner’s request was essentially an attempt to gather evidence to prove his "new construction" defense, which he was legally obligated to prove through independent admissible evidence.

The Court emphasized that Section 2 of the Act provides objective statutory criteria (like municipal assessments) for determining age, making physical inspection secondary.

Since the Appellate Authority found sufficient municipal records on file to adjudicate the age of the building, a local investigation was not "requisite" for the elucidation of the dispute.

The Court held that the authorities properly exercised their judicial discretion to prevent the procedural tool from being misused for evidence-gathering.

The Court answered the issue in the negative, affirming that a commission for local investigation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and was unnecessary in this case as the controversy could be resolved via the existing evidence on record.

The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was not warranted as there was no failure of justice or perversity in the orders.