Sardar Kuldeep Singh vs Santosh Tayal

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 2692003 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffarnagar (Prescribed Authority) in P.A. Case No. 29 of 1999.

The dispute relates to an accommodation, the details whereof have been given in the release application referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as �the disputed accommodation.�

From a perusal of 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 accommodation. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 29 of 1999. Copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that the petitioner contested the said release application, and file his written statement. Copy of the said written statement has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said release application before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed an application dated 1592003 (No. 48 Ga) for spot inspection along with an affidavit. Copy of the said application dated 1592003 (No. 48 Ga) for spot inspection along with its supporting affidavit has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition.

The respondent filed an objection dated 2292003 (No. 50 Ga) against the said application for spot inspection dated 1592003. Copy of the said objection dated 2292003 (No. 50 Ga) has been filed Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition.

By the impugned order dated 2692003 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition), the said application (No. 48 Ga) for spot inspection has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar.

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

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

From the facts narrated above, it is evident that by the impugned order dated 2692003, an application for spot inspection filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. The said order dated 2692003 is evidently an interlocutory order, and it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order in appeal under Section 22 of the Act, in case, the final decision of the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 29 of 1999 goes against the petitioner, and the petitioner files an appeal under Section 22 of the Act against such final decision.

In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 2692003, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order at this stage.

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

Writ petition dismissed.