Ram Bharosey vs Pradeep Kumar and another

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 22.9.2003 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Badaun.

The dispute relates to an accommodation situated in Mohalla Shahbazpur, Chauraha near Tikatganj, Badaun, the details whereof are given in the release application referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred as "the disputed accommodation".

From the allegations made in the writ petition and annexures thereto, it appears that Ram Narain (predecessorininterest of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) 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 accommodation. The said release application was registered as Rent Case No. 1 of 1993.

During the pendency of the said release application, the said Ram Narain expired and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein were substituted as the heirs and legal representatives of the said Ram Narain.

It further appears that an amendment application was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, inter alia, praying for being permitted to make various amendments. Copy of the said amendment application (paper No. 113Kha) has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.

By the order dated 22.9.2003 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition), the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Badaun allowed the raid amendment application (paper No. 113Kha).

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

I have heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, and perused the record.

From the narration of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the impugned order dated 22.9.2003 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) has been passed by the learned Civil (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Badaun on an amendment application filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 during the pendency of the said Rent Case no. 1 of 1993. The impugned order dated 22.9.2003 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) is thus, an interlocutory order. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order before the appellate authority, in case final decision in the said Rent Case No. 1 of 1993 goes against the petitioner and the petitioner challenges the final decision in an appeal under section 22 of the Act.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the said impugned order dated 22.9.2003 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition), I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order dated 22.9.2003 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) at this stage.

The writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.