JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner, who alleges to be a person in occupation of the accommodation in question, filed an application alongwith revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act with the prayer that delay in filing the revision may be condoned and the revision. May be heard and decided on merits. The revisional Court by its order dated 4th October 2004 rejected the aforesaid application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner alleges himself to be tenant and therefore, prays for stay of the execution of the order of eviction which is subject matter of revision, The revisional Court found that the revision itself is not maintainable, thus application for condonation of delay was also dismissed alongwith the memo of revision. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner is being evicted in execution of the order to which he is not a party and the said application has been filed against a person who has never been tenant of the accommodation in question. This revision has been dismissed by the revisional Court as stated above as not maintainable alongwith the application for condonation of delay. Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh reads as under:-
"25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes. - The District Judge, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of an aggrieved party made within thirty days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such with respect thereto as he thinks fit."
2. It is admitted at the Bar that the petitioner has not filed any application for leave of the Court to file revision because he was not party to the proceedings which is sought to be challenged by means of the present writ petition, the Apex Court, in the decision reported in, AIR 1971 SC 374, Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. Golcha Properties Private Ltd., ruled as under:-
"It would be a travesty of justice if a party is driven to file a suit which would involve long and cumbersome procedure when an order has been made directly affecting that party and redress can be had by filing an appeal which is permitted by law. It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudically affected by the judgment."
3. Applying the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court to the proceedings under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act I do not find any reason that why the petitioner cannot file a revision alongwith an application for leave of the Court, Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner has not filed any application for leave of the Court.
4. To me it appears in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by filing revision with an application for leave of the Court. Therefore, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained at this stage.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in, (1998) 8 SCC 1, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., relevant Paragraph 15 of which is reproduced below:-
"15, Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a Writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at lease three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely, on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the filed."
6. From the perusal of the aforesaid Paragraph 15 of the Apex Court's judgment and in view of the fact that the petitioner could have filed a revision alongwith an application for leave of the Court, to me it appears that the law evolved by the Apex Court in the Whirlpool case is not attracted to the facts of the present case.
7. In view of what has been stated above I find that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has alternative remedy to file revision with the leave of the Court. If an application for leave of the Court is filed by petitioner alongwith the revision the same shall be decided by revisional authority in accordance with law.
8. In view of what has been stated, this writ petition is dismissed at this stage without entering into the merits of case of the petitioner.