AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dilip Gupta, J.—Respondent No. 3 late Dhanraj Yadav filed an application u/s 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for release of the premises given on rent to the petitioner. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the ex-parte order dated 2nd May, 2003. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parte order but the application was rejected by the order dated 23rd December, 2004. The petitioner filed an Appeal for setting aside the order dated 23rd December, 2004 but the Appeal was converted into a Revision which was dismissed by the order dated 14th February, 2008.
The petitioner also filed an Appeal u/s 22 of the Act against the ex-parte order dated 2nd May, 2003. This Appeal was accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.
It is during the pendency of this Appeal that the present petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs:
(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 2.5.2003 (Annexure-3) passed by Prescribed Authority, order dated 23.12.2004, rejecting restoration/delay condonation application in Restoration Case No. 35/2004 (Annexure-7) and the judgment and order dated 14.2.2008, passed by Respondent District Judge, in Revision No. 41 of 2008 Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. Dhanraj Yadav (Annexure-11) and to allow the writ petition with cost.
(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned Respondents to not to give effect to the impugned orders dated 2.5.2003, order dated 23.12.2004 and judgment and order dated 14.2.2008.
(3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the concerned Respondents to decide and dispose of the Rent Control Appeal (Misc.) No. 129 of 2005, Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. Dhanraj Yadav for recall of the ex-parte decision dated 2.5.2003, of the trial court, expeditiously within time bound period.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may not be evicted during the pendency of the Appeal.
Sri Atul Dayal learned Counsel has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment of Deepak Kumar Jaiswal who has subsequently purchased the property from the heirs of Dhanraj Yadav. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the earlier landlord Sri Dhanraj Yadav was murdered and a First Information Report was lodged in which the petitioner is an accused and he has been released on bail.
It is not necessary to examine the rival contentions, as the petitioner has filed an Appeal against the ex-parte order dated 2nd May, 2003, which is pending disposal. The writ petition is dismissed, as the Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.