2025:UHC:8699 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2777 of 2025 26 September, 2025 Gurcharan Singh & another --Petitioners Versus Nanda Ballabh Sati & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ramnagar in Rent Control Appeal No. 02 of 2021, Gurcharan Singh & another vs. Nanda Ballabh Sati & another, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has rejected the application (Paper No. 51 Ga) filed under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 for local inspection. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a release application was filed by the contesting respondent no.1, Shri Nanda Ballabh Sati, for release of the demised property on the ground of his bona fide need. The release application was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the said release order by filing Rent Control Appeal No. 02 of 2021, Gurcharan Singh & another vs. Shri Nanda Ballabh Sati & another. In the said appeal, an application (Paper No. 51 Ga) was filed seeking local inspection, mainly on the ground that 2025:UHC:8699 2 the contesting respondent/landlord had not approached the prescribed authority with clean hands. It was further contended that the demised property was purchased by respondent no.1 on 26.10.2016 through a sale deed executed by the previous owner, Puran Chandra Chimwal, who was also the landlord of the petitioners. The petitioners attempted to cast doubt on the nature of the demised property by filing the said application at the appellate stage. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 20.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ramnagar. 3. I have perused the impugned order in the present writ petition. The learned appellate court has rejected the application primarily on the ground that the petitioners themselves had admitted being tenants of the contesting respondent. Therefore, such an application for local inspection was held to be unwarranted. The reasoning given by the learned appellate court appears to be sound and convincing. No interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. 4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 26.09.2025 AK