Hafiz Khan vs Abdul Gafoor & Anr.

S.P. Mehrotra, J.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 1122003 (Annexure No. 1 to Writ Petition) passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Rampur (Appellate Authority) on an application (Paper No. 67 Ga) filed in Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2000.

The dispute relates to a shop, the details whereof are given in the judgment and order dated 18102000 passed by the Prescribed Authority/First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur which is referred to hereinafter. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as �the disputed shop�.

From a perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition, and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent No. 1 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 release of the disputed shop. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 1998.

It further appears that by the judgment and order dated 1810 2000, the Prescribed Authority/First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur allowed the said release application filed by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the disputed shop. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 18102000 has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that against the said judgment and order dated 18102000, the petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2000.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2000, the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement. The said application was allowed by the Appellate Authority.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2000, the petitioner filed another application dated 1122003 (Paper No. 67 Ga), inter alia, praying for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for making local inspection and submitting report on the points mentioned in the said application. Copy of the said application dated 1122003(Paper No. 67 GA) has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that the Objections dated 1122003 were filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 against the said application dated 1122003 (Paper No. 67 Ga) filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for making spot inspection. Copy of the said Objections dated 112 2003 has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears by the order dated 1122003 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition), the Appellate Authority rejected the said application dated 1122003 (Paper No. 67 Ga) filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for making spot inspection.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard Sri Murlidhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner at length, and perused the record.

It is submitted by Sri Murlidhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that as the amendment application filed on behalf of the petitioner during the pendency of the said Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2000 had been allowed by the Appellate Authority and the facts regarding acquisition of the shops by the son of the respondent No. 1 under a Will had been brought on record, it was necessary to make spot inspection of the shops acquired by the son of the respondent No. 1. It is submitted by Sri Murlidhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority illegally rejected the said application dated 1122003 (Paper No. 67 Ga) filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for making spot inspection. It is further submitted that an earlier spot inspection made by the Prescribed Authority on 892000 (Annexure No. 9 to the Writ Petition) during the pendency of the case before the Prescribed Authority was not relevant as the facts regarding acquisition of the said shops by the son of the respondent No. 1 had been brought on record for the first time before the Appellate Authority.

Having heard the submissions made by Sri Murlidhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to consider the said submissions made by Sri Murlidhar pertaining to the merit of the impugned order at this stage.

The said order dated 1122003 has been passed on an application dated 1122003 (Paper No. 67 Ga) filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for making spot inspection during the pendency of the said Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2000. The said order dated 1122003 is evidently an interlocutory order. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order before this Court, in case, the final decision in the said Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2000 goes against the petitioner and the petitioner challenges such final decision before this Court.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the said order dated 1122003, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order at this stage.

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