Banke Lal vs Jagwant

S.P. Mehrotra, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 292003 (Annexure5 to the writ petition passed by the learned District Judge, Jaunpur in Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2003.

The dispute relates to a shop, the details whereof are given in the judgment and order dated 1452003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Jaunpur referred to hereinafter. The said shop has, hereinafter. been referred to as the �disputed shop�.

From the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent filed a release application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short �the Act�) against the petitioner for the release of the disputed shop. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 2 of 1998.

By the judgment and order dated 1452003, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Jaunpur allowed the said release application filed by the respondent. Copy of the said judgment and order 1452003 has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2003.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed on amendment application praying for being permitted to make amendments in the written statement filed by the petitioner. A copy of the said amendment application has been filed as Annexure3 to the writ petition.

By the order dated 292003 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaunpur, the said amendment application filed by the petitioner was rejected.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard Shri S.K. Gupta, holding brief for Shri Mahipal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondent at length.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

It will be noticed that the impugned order dated 292003 has been passed on the amendment application filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the said Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2003. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 292003 before this Court, in case, the said Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2003 is ultimately decided against the petitioner, and the petitioner challenges such final decision before this Court.

Hence, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 292003. I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order dated 292003 at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed at this stage subject to the observations made above.