Tenant’s Bid to Inspect Shops Reflected in Municipal Records Fails; Allahabad HC Says Inspection Now Won’t Establish 2017 Vacancy

The landlords obtained release of the petitioner’s shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, on the ground that it was required for their son’s cosmetic business.

The petitioner’s appeal against the release order was pending before the Additional District Judge. During the appeal, municipal assessment records relating to Property No. 151 were admitted as additional evidence; the petitioner relied on them to allege that vacant commercial shops existed there.

He then sought appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the property, which the Appellate Authority rejected, finding insufficient justification for investigation of a property whose assessment records were already on the record. The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 227.

Section 34(1)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 confers on the relevant authorities powers analogous to those of a civil court, including power to issue a commission for local investigation; that power is governed by the principles in Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.

Under Order XXVI Rule 9, a commission may be issued where local investigation is “requisite or proper” to elucidate a matter in dispute. The power is discretionary: it may assist in understanding relevant physical features or circumstances, but cannot be used to collect evidence, fill an evidentiary lacuna, test a party’s assertions, or improve a party’s case.

In *Romil Jain v. Ashok Kumar Jain and Another*, cited as 2026:AHC:138516, this Court likewise held that appointment of a Commissioner is not a litigant’s vested right and must be justified by the needs of effective adjudication.

Supervisory interference under Article 227 is warranted only where the impugned order involves jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or material irregularity.

The petitioner had already placed the municipal assessment records on the appellate record, and the Appellate Authority could assess their evidentiary value alongside the parties’ submissions.

A commission was not justified merely because the respondents disputed the inference the petitioner sought to draw from those records; the petitioner had not identified a specific physical feature requiring investigation that could not be addressed by the existing material.

Further, an inspection during the appeal would reveal the property’s condition on the inspection date, but would not, without supporting evidence, establish whether the shops were vacant or available when the release proceedings were instituted in 2017.

The proposed investigation therefore risked gathering further evidence for the petitioner’s case rather than elucidating a matter for which local investigation was requisite or proper.

The petition was dismissed, with the Appellate Authority urged to decide the pending appeal expeditiously and without unnecessary adjournments.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the appeal or on the existence, vacancy, availability, or suitability of any alternative accommodation.