Shanti Devi and Ors. vs Chandra Bhusan Agarwal

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 1482003 (Annexure3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 4), Gorakhpur/Appellate Authority.

From the averments made in the writ petition, 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�) for the release of the shop in question. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 32 of 2000.

It further appears that the petitioners contested the said release application.

It further appears that the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur by his judgment and order dated 13112002 allowed the said release application.

Thereupon, it appears that the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Appeal No.16 of 2002.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said Rent Appeal No. 16 of 2002, the petitioners filed an application under Section 10(2) of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act, inter alia, praying for being permitted to bring on record certain additional evidence. Copy of the said application has been filed as AnnexureI to the writ petition.

An affidavit sworn on 2472003 was also filed in support of the said application for additional evidence. Copy of the said affidavit sworn on 2472003 has been filed as Annexure2 to the writ petition.

It further appears that by the order dated 1482003 (Annexure3 to the writ petition), the learned Additional District Judge (Court No.4) Gorakhpur/Appellate Authority rejected the said application for additional evidence filed on behalf of the petitioners.

Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard Shri Rajeev Chaddha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

As noted above, the impugned order dated 1482003 has been passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the application for additional evidence filed on behalf of the petitioners during the pendency of the said Rent Appeal No. 16 of 2002. The said order is evidently an interlocutory order. It will be open to the petitioners to challenge the said order dated 1482003 before this Court in case the final decision in the said Rent Appeal No. 16 of 2002 goes against the petitioners, and the petitioners challenge such final decision before this Court.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 1482003, 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.