JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commending the respondent No. 1 (Prescribed Authority, Moradabad) to decide the impleadment Application No. 36 (Ga) filed by the petitioner before delivery of the judgment in P.A. Case No. 4 of 2002.
2. 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."
3. From the allegations made in the writ petition , it appears that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a release application under Section 21 (i) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in the short "the Act") against Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 4) for the release of the disputed accommodation. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said release application that the respondent Nos, 2 and 3 were owners and landlords of the disputed accommodation having purchased the same from the previous owner Bal Govind and others ; and that the satd Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 4) was the tenant of the disputed accommodation at the monthly rent of Rs. 45 ; and that the disputed accommodation was bona fide required by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the residence of their family; and that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would suffer great hardship in case of rejection of the release application while in comparison, the said Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 4) would not suffer any hardship in case the release application was allowed. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 4 of 2002. Copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
4. It further appears that the said Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 4) contested the said release application and filed her written statement. Copy of the written statement has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
5. It was, inter alia, alleged in the written statement that the disputed accommodation was taken on rent by K.K. Dhawan husband of the said Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 4) and that on the death of the said K. K. Dhawan on 1.11.1979 the said Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 4) along with Anil Kumar Dhawan, Ashok Kumar Dhawan Sunil Kumar Dhawan and Vinod Kumar Dhawan became joint tenants of the disputed accommodation.
6. It further appears that during the pendency of the said release case, the said Anil Kumar Dhawan, petitioner filed an application dated 4.3.2003 (numbered as 36C) before the Prescribed Authority, inter alia, praying for being impleaded in the said release case. The said application dated 4.3.2003 was supported by an affidavit of the petitioner (Anil Kumar Dhawan) sworn on 4.3.2003. Copies of the said application dated 4.3.2003 along with its supporting affidavit sworn on 4.3.2003 have been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
7. It further appears from a perusal of the order-sheet of 11.3.2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) that on 11.3.2003, the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad (respondent No. 1) heard the arguments on the said Application No. 36C. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad, passed an order dated 11.3.2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) inter alia, observing that the arguments on the application No. 36C were heard ; and that the arguments of the parties in the release case had already been heard ; and that the record be presented on 15.3.2003 for orders on the application No. 36C and judgment. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed another application No. 43C on the same date (i.e., 11.3.2003), inter alia, stating that suitable order be passed on the application No. 36C filed by the petitioner before delivery of judgment in the said release case. The Prescribed Authority, Moradabad (respondent No. 1) passed another order on 11.3.2003 on the said application No. 43C, inter alia, observing that in case, the application No. 36C was allowed, judgment in the said release case would not be delivered on the date fixed.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking reliefs mentioned above.
9. J have heard Sri AJay Kumar Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is submitted by Sri Goel that the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad ought to have passed order on the application No. 36C before proceeding to deliver judgment in the release case. It is further submitted by Sri Goel that the Prescribed Authority has acted illegally in not disposing of the application No. 36C before delivery of judgment in the release case.
10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find myself unable to accept the same. As is apparent from the perusal of the first order dated 11.3.2003 (Annexure-4) passed by the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad (respondent No. 1), arguments on the application No. 36C were heard and 15.3.2003 was fixed as the date for orders on the application No. 36C. It is also apparent from the said order dated 11.3.2003 that the arguments in the release case had been heard and it was observed that the judgment would be delivered in the release case on 15.3.2003.
11. When another application No. 43C was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 11.3.2003, the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad, again passed an order on 11.3.2003, inter-alia, observing that in case the said application No. 36C would be allowed, judgment would not be delivered on the date fixed.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the petitioner has no occasion to raise any grievance against the order(s) passed on 11.3.2003 by the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad. The Prescribed Authority, Moradabad, has not as yet disposed of the application No. 36C. The Prescribed Authority has further made It clear that in case the said application No. 36C would be allowed, judgment in the release case would not be delivered. In the circumstances, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. In any case, this is not a fit case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.